Australian Stuttering Research Centre, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW, Australia; Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2014 May-Jun;49(3):364-8. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12069. Epub 2013 Dec 4.
At present, percent syllables stuttered (%SS) is the gold standard outcome measure for behavioural stuttering treatment research. However, ordinal severity rating (SR) procedures have some inherent advantages over that method.
To establish the relationship between Clinician %SS, Clinician SR and self-reported Speaker SR. To investigate whether Clinician SRs and Speaker SRs can be used interchangeably.
METHOD & PROCEDURES: Participants were three experienced speech-language pathologist (SLP) judges and 87 adults who stuttered. Adults who stuttered received a 10-min unscheduled telephone call at the conclusion of which they self-reported a SR using a nine-point scale. The SLPs measured the stuttering for these conversations with %SS and also with the SR scale. The mean scores for Clinician %SS and Clinician SR were compared with Speaker SR using appropriate indices of relative and absolute reliability. Relative reliability indices deal with the rank order of participants in a sample and whether they can be distinguished from each other. However, absolute reliability indices are related to the closeness of the measurement scores to each other and to a hypothetical true score.
OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Strong correlations were found between Clinician %SS and Clinician SR, and also between Clinician %SS and Speaker SR, although with higher values in the former case. Additionally, very high correlations showed acceptable relative reliability between Clinician SR and Speaker SR. However, absolute reliability in terms of standard error of measurement and limits of agreement was poor for Clinician SR and Speaker SR.
CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The results suggest that Clinician SR and Speaker SR cannot be used interchangeably to measure temporal stuttering severity changes for an individual client. However, researchers might use these two measures interchangeably in research contexts, such as clinical trials, where changes of the entire group are of interest to determine and compare treatment effect size across trials.
目前，口吃百分比（%SS）是行为性口吃治疗研究的金标准结果测量方法。然而，ordinal severity rating（SR）程序在某些方面具有比该方法固有优势。
建立临床医师%SS、临床医师 SR 和自我报告的说话者 SR 之间的关系。调查临床医师 SR 和说话者 SR 是否可以互换使用。
参与者为三位经验丰富的言语语言病理学家（SLP）评判者和 87 位口吃成人。口吃成人在研究结束时接到一个 10 分钟的非计划电话，然后使用九点量表自我报告 SR。SLP 使用 %SS 和 SR 量表对这些对话进行口吃测量。使用适当的相对和绝对可靠性指标比较临床医师%SS 和临床医师 SR 的平均得分与说话者 SR。相对可靠性指数处理样本中参与者的等级顺序以及他们是否可以相互区分。然而，绝对可靠性指数与测量分数之间的接近程度以及与假设的真实分数有关。
发现临床医师%SS 与临床医师 SR 之间，以及临床医师%SS 与说话者 SR 之间存在很强的相关性，尽管前者的相关性更高。此外，临床医师 SR 和说话者 SR 之间的相关性非常高，具有可接受的相对可靠性。然而，就测量分数的标准误差和一致性限制而言，临床医师 SR 和说话者 SR 的绝对可靠性较差。
结果表明，临床医师 SR 和说话者 SR 不能互换使用来衡量个体客户的时间性口吃严重程度变化。然而，研究人员可能会在研究环境中互换使用这两种测量方法，例如临床试验，在这些试验中，整个组的变化对于确定和比较跨试验的治疗效果大小是感兴趣的。
