H the frequency of non-stuttered and total disfluencies in both groups.

H the frequency of non-stuttered and total disfluencies in both groups. Higher prevalence of stuttering in boys has been well documented, especially in cases of persistent developmental stuttering (Bloodstein Bernstein Ratner, 2008; Yairi Ambrose, 2005). However, few studies have assessed whether gender is related to normal (non-stuttered) disfluency or the extent to which boys and girls differ in frequency of non-stuttered disfluencies. Our purchase Isovaleryl-Val-Val-Sta-Ala-Sta-OH results are consistent with the notion that regardless of talker group (i.e., CWS or CWNS) boys produce more non-stuttered disfluencies (and consequently more total disfluencies) than girls, a finding similar to previous studies (Davis, 1939; Johnson et al., 1959). One possible interpretation of this finding is that boys’ speech and language abilities, which are thought to be less robust and/or develop at a slower rate than those of girls of the same age, predispose them to more frequent breakdowns in fluency. Parental concern for stuttering and stuttered disfluencies–In support of our fourth hypothesis we found a strong H 4065 web association between examiners’ judgment of frequency of stuttered disfluencies and parents’ expressed concern about stuttering, similar to findingsNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptJ Commun Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 01.Tumanova et al.Pageof an empirical study of a large sample of children who speak Dutch (Boey et al., 2007). This was an expected finding since most parents of children who are brought to a research setting where stuttering is being studied are almost, by definition, interested in and/or have concerns about their child’s fluency. Whether the concern stems from parental perceptions of their child’s speech disfluency, the fact that the parent or other family member stutters, relatives, teachers or health care professions suggesting that the child is stuttering, or some combination of two or more of these conditions, parental concern about their child’s “stuttering” exists for many parents assessed clinically as well as for the purposes of research. Thus, the precise role of parental concern relative to the diagnosis and treatment of childhood stuttering remains a viable topic for empirical study. At least knowing that these two variables ?examiners’ judgment of frequency of stuttered disfluencies and parental concern about a child’s stuttering ?were significantly associated provides empirical evidence for the use of frequency of stuttered disfluencies as an objective, robust criterion to classify children as those who do and do not stutter. However, as with most “objective” talker group classification criteria (e.g., the 3 stuttered disfluencies criterion), some children will present in both clinical as well as research settings to be on the margins or cusp of this criterion, making them challenging to classify. 4.1. Caveats One salient caveat pertaining to the current study is that our paradigm did not allow for an exhaustive assessment of speech and language ability. For example, articulation abilities, assessed with GFTA, were tested only at a single-word level. Moreover, language competence was largely evaluated by expressive and receptive vocabulary tests (PPVT and EVT), and only one test of overall language ability was employed (TELD). Replication of the present study with more conversational-based or direct measures of language, for example, mean length of utterance (MLU), is recommended to b.H the frequency of non-stuttered and total disfluencies in both groups. Higher prevalence of stuttering in boys has been well documented, especially in cases of persistent developmental stuttering (Bloodstein Bernstein Ratner, 2008; Yairi Ambrose, 2005). However, few studies have assessed whether gender is related to normal (non-stuttered) disfluency or the extent to which boys and girls differ in frequency of non-stuttered disfluencies. Our results are consistent with the notion that regardless of talker group (i.e., CWS or CWNS) boys produce more non-stuttered disfluencies (and consequently more total disfluencies) than girls, a finding similar to previous studies (Davis, 1939; Johnson et al., 1959). One possible interpretation of this finding is that boys’ speech and language abilities, which are thought to be less robust and/or develop at a slower rate than those of girls of the same age, predispose them to more frequent breakdowns in fluency. Parental concern for stuttering and stuttered disfluencies–In support of our fourth hypothesis we found a strong association between examiners’ judgment of frequency of stuttered disfluencies and parents’ expressed concern about stuttering, similar to findingsNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptJ Commun Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 01.Tumanova et al.Pageof an empirical study of a large sample of children who speak Dutch (Boey et al., 2007). This was an expected finding since most parents of children who are brought to a research setting where stuttering is being studied are almost, by definition, interested in and/or have concerns about their child’s fluency. Whether the concern stems from parental perceptions of their child’s speech disfluency, the fact that the parent or other family member stutters, relatives, teachers or health care professions suggesting that the child is stuttering, or some combination of two or more of these conditions, parental concern about their child’s “stuttering” exists for many parents assessed clinically as well as for the purposes of research. Thus, the precise role of parental concern relative to the diagnosis and treatment of childhood stuttering remains a viable topic for empirical study. At least knowing that these two variables ?examiners’ judgment of frequency of stuttered disfluencies and parental concern about a child’s stuttering ?were significantly associated provides empirical evidence for the use of frequency of stuttered disfluencies as an objective, robust criterion to classify children as those who do and do not stutter. However, as with most “objective” talker group classification criteria (e.g., the 3 stuttered disfluencies criterion), some children will present in both clinical as well as research settings to be on the margins or cusp of this criterion, making them challenging to classify. 4.1. Caveats One salient caveat pertaining to the current study is that our paradigm did not allow for an exhaustive assessment of speech and language ability. For example, articulation abilities, assessed with GFTA, were tested only at a single-word level. Moreover, language competence was largely evaluated by expressive and receptive vocabulary tests (PPVT and EVT), and only one test of overall language ability was employed (TELD). Replication of the present study with more conversational-based or direct measures of language, for example, mean length of utterance (MLU), is recommended to b.