Onslow M, Gardner K, Bryant K M, Stuckings C L, Knight T
Cumberland College of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Australia.
J Speech Hear Res. 1992 Feb;35(1):79-87. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3501.79.
A set of 200 utterances from stuttering and normally speaking children aged 2-4 years was obtained. Each utterance contained a disfluency. A group of 5 sophisticated listeners assigned one of Johnson's eight disfluency categories to each of the 200 utterances. These clinicians showed poor agreement in the categories they assigned. Subsequently, the 200 disfluencies were presented to a group of generalist clinician listeners and a group of unsophisticated listeners, who were asked to judge whether each disfluency was "stuttering" or "normal." The disfluencies judged with high agreement to be "stuttering" and the disfluencies judged with high agreement to be "normal" were not categorically distinguished by the disfluency categories assigned previously by the sophisticated listeners. Further, judged presence of various disfluency categories accounted for only a small portion of the variance in numbers of "stuttering" judgments assigned to disfluencies. It is concluded that it is justifiable to question the validity of the data language used by researchers to describe stuttered and normal speech in early childhood. Several implications of this conclusion are discussed.
我们收集了一组来自2至4岁口吃儿童和正常儿童的200条话语。每条话语都包含一处言语不流畅。一组由5名经验丰富的听众，将约翰逊的八种言语不流畅类别之一，分配给这200条话语中的每一条。这些临床医生在他们所分配的类别上表现出了较差的一致性。随后，这200处言语不流畅被呈现给一组普通临床医生听众和一组非专业听众，他们被要求判断每处言语不流畅是“口吃”还是“正常”。那些被高度一致判断为“口吃”的言语不流畅，以及那些被高度一致判断为“正常”的言语不流畅，并没有被之前经验丰富的听众所分配的言语不流畅类别明确区分开来。此外，所判断出的各种言语不流畅类别的存在，在分配给言语不流畅的“口吃”判断数量的差异中，仅占一小部分。研究得出结论，质疑研究人员用于描述幼儿口吃和正常言语的数据语言的有效性是合理的。本文讨论了这一结论的几个影响。
