ادراکات دانش آموزان از یک همکلاسی که لکنت زبان دارد

Little is known about how middle school students perceive a similar-aged peer who stutters. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the influence of stuttering frequency, Likert statement type (affective, behavioral, cognitive), and the gender of the listener on middle school students’ perceptions of a peer who stutters. Sixty-four middle school students (10–14 years) individually viewed a video sample of a teen telling a joke at one of four stuttering frequencies (<1%, 5%, 10%, 14%). After the students viewed one of the video samples, they were asked to rate 11 Likert statements that reflected their affective, behavioral, and cognitive perceptions of a peer who stuttered. The results revealed an interaction between stuttering frequency and Likert statement type. Ratings of behavioral statements (speech production characteristics) were significantly more positive for the sample containing <1% stuttering than 10% and 14% stuttering. Ratings for cognitive statements (thought and beliefs) were significantly more positive for the sample containing <1% stuttering than 10% and 14% stuttering. The stuttering frequency of the peer did not significantly influence how students rated affective statements (feelings and emotions). It was also found that male and female middle school students did not significantly differ in their perceptions of a male peer who stutters. Clinical implications are discussed relative to peer teasing, friendship, listener comfort, and social acceptance within a middle school setting for a student who stutters. Future research directions are also discussed. Educational objectives: The reader will be able to: (1) summarize how middle school students perceive stuttering; (2) explain how the frequency of stuttering influences middle school students’ perceptions of a peer who stutters; and (3) provide clinical implications of the data from this study.

Social interactions and affiliations with peers are important in middle school and critical to adolescent development (Parker & Asher, 1993). Among young adolescents, peers are a significant source of positive experiences and they are happiest when talking with their peers (Csikszentmihalyi, Larson, & Prescott, 1977). In early adolescence, a strong sense of belonging to peer groups emerges and there is considerable importance placed on group conformity while balancing an acceptable level for individual differences within the group (Newman & Newman, 1997). An acceptable level for individual differences within the group is often determined by the peer group. Consequently, its members are susceptible to the peer pressure and possible alienation if an individual difference does not meet the group norm, particularly for students in the 7th and 8th grades (Urberg, Shyu, & Liang, 1990). Although research has shown that students with communication impairments are more likely rejected by peers (e.g., Rice, Sell, & Hadley, 1991), little research has examined how middle school students perceive a similar aged peer who stutters. This is particularly relevant to the present study as nonstuttering children 8–13 years of age indicated their own feelings and behaviors toward stuttering would be strongly influenced by their nonstuttering peers (Langevin & Hagler, 2004). Although many studies have been conducted on how listeners’ perceive adults who stutter (e.g., Collins & Blood, 1990; Gabel, 2006 and Manning et al., 1999; Panico, Healey, Brouwer, & Susca, 2005; Susca & Healey, 2001; Woods & Williams, 1976), less is known about how listeners perceive children and adolescents who stutter. Two early studies that examined children's perceptions of stuttering were conducted by Giolas and Williams (1958) and Culatta and Sloan (1977). In both studies students in kindergarten to fourth grade indicated preference for fluent speech over stuttered speech. Additionally, Giolas and Williams found many of the second graders were able to define the disfluent speech as stuttering, whereas the kindergartners were more vague in their reasons for stating disapproval. In contrast, Culatta and Sloan found none of the first or second graders used the word stuttering to label disfluent speech. More recently, Ezrati-Vinacour, Platzky, and Yairi (2001) examined the awareness of stuttering among children 3–7 years of age using a video sample with a fluent and disfluent puppet. Similar to the findings of Culatta and Sloan (1977), Ezrati-Vinacour et al. (2001) found that few of the 6- and 7-year-old children could label disfluent speech as stuttering. However, children as young as 3 years of age were able to identify and discriminate between the fluent and stuttered speech. In addition, Ezrati-Vinacour et al. found the children showed a preference toward choosing the fluent puppet as a friend rather than the disfluent puppet. In a similar study, Griffin and Leahy (2007) asked young children (3–5 years) to view a videotaped speech sample of a puppet telling a story with moderate stuttering and a puppet telling a story with fluent speech. The researchers found the children perceived the puppet with moderate stuttering more negatively than the puppet with fluent speech. In contrast to findings of Ezrati-Vinacour et al. (2001), the children did not show a preference toward the puppet they would choose as a friend. In addition, the authors found the personality traits of the puppet with moderate stuttering were not perceived any more negatively than the fluent puppet. Therefore, the young children attributed more negative ratings to intelligence rather than personality attributes of the puppet with moderate stuttering. General speech production awareness among children has also been examined. Bajaj, Hodson, and Westby (2005) conducted a qualitative study about the conceptions that kindergarten, first, and second grade students (5.10–8.10 years) had about the attributes of a “good talker” and a “bad talker.” In response to structured interview questions, the typically fluent students most readily identified pragmatically based behaviors (e.g., “They tell lies) rather than form-based behaviors (e.g., “They speak loud.”). In addition, their form-based responses were diverse. Only 17% of their form-based responses related to stuttering-like behaviors. Therefore, these data may suggest a limited awareness or concern about stuttering among typically fluent young school-aged children. Among older children, Franck, Jackson, Pimentel, and Greenwood (2003) asked fourth and fifth graders (9–11 years) to rate two videotaped speech samples of an adult—one containing 3.2% stuttered syllables and the other containing 14% stuttered syllables. No secondary coping behaviors (e.g., eye closure, head movement) were associated with the speech samples. The elementary school-age students were asked to rate the speaker using adjective pairs related to various personality (e.g., outgoing–shy) and intelligence (e.g., intelligent–stupid) traits of the speaker. Franck et al. (2003) discovered that students in both grades provided significantly more negative ratings for the speech sample that contained 14% stuttering than 3.2% stuttering. In contrast to Griffin and Leahy (2007), the authors found that fourth and fifth grade students did not rate the personality and intelligence traits of the speaker differently. Thus, it appears that childrens’ perception of the personality traits of an adult who stutters begins to change between 5 and 9 years of age. Hartford and Leahy (2007) compared childrens’ (6–13 years) perceptions of a fluent adult speaker to the same adult producing simulated stuttering. The simulated stuttering was subjectively judged by speech-language pathology students to range from moderate to very severe stuttering. After hearing an audio recording of both speakers tell a short story, the primary students responded to 14 questions that contained positive and negative attributes about the speakers (e.g., Who do you think would be a quiet person?). Their findings revealed that the children assigned greater negative attributes to the disfluent speaker than to the fluent speaker and the older children (8–13 years) assigned more negative attributes to the disfluent speaker than the younger children (6–8 years). In addition, the oldest students (11–13 years) preferred to be a friend of the fluent speaker rather than the disfluent speaker while younger students (6–10 years) did not indicate such a preference. These findings suggest that as children enter into adolescence, their perceptions of an adult with moderate to severe stuttering become more negative than at a younger age. The studies by Giolas and Williams (1958), Culatta and Sloan (1977), Franck et al. (2003), and Hartford and Leahy (2007) provide reliable evidence that elementary school-age children prefer to listen to adults who speak fluently than those who have moderate or severe stuttering. While these findings are informative, all of these studies have examined young children's perceptions of stuttering from the standpoint of an adult or puppet who stutters. It is still unknown how children react to a child similar in age rather than an adult who stutters. Przymus (2002) conducted a preliminary study of the reactions of a small group of third, fourth, and fifth grade students (8–11 years) to a 10-year-old boy who produced two speech samples; one with 5% stuttering and the other with 10% stuttering. From the students’ perceptual ratings of statements and open-ended questions about the speaker in each speech sample, Przymus found that the students had negative perceptions of the speaker regardless of the frequency of his stuttering. One could hypothesize that negative perceptions of stuttering would be even greater for students in middle school-age range (i.e., 10–14) than elementary school-age children because middle school students typically place a high value on peer approval and relationships (Parker & Asher, 1993; Steinberg, 1999). In addition, the students’ perceptions of and relationships with a peer who is a young adolescent or teen who stutters could also be influenced by the stuttering frequency that individual exhibits. The findings that children 9–13 years of age negatively perceive the attributes of a person who stutters (Franck et al., 2003; Hartford & Leahy, 2007) and children 11–13 years of age prefer to be a friend of a fluent speaker rather than a disfluent speaker (Hartford & Leahy, 2007), suggest that a teen who exhibits a high frequency of stuttering may be less accepted by their peer group than a teen with minimal stuttering. In order to examine how stuttering frequency influences students’ perception of a teen who stutters, Evans, Kawai, Healey, and Rowland (2007) conducted a qualitative study of middle school students reactions to and comments about a teenage boy who produced 5%, 10% and 14% stuttering in three separate speech samples. From the students’ comments, it was concluded that the frequency of his stuttering had little effect on how comfortable students felt while listening to him speak. However, as the teen's stuttering increased, more students made sympathetic comments toward the social hardships he would endure and acknowledged the potential for teasing or bullying by his classmates. On the other hand, the teen's stuttering did not have a large influence on the number of comments students made about the difficulty the peer would have making friends. Concerns about students teasing a peer who stutters from the Evans et al. (2007) study are consistent with other studies about teasing or bullying that a teen who stutters might receive. Research has shown adolescents who stutter are at greater risk of bullying and social isolation than adolescents who do not stutter (Blood & Blood, 2004) and most students who stutter are usually teased or bullied at least once per week (Langevin, Bortnick, Hammer, & Wiebe, 1998). The finding that teens who stutter are frequently teased or bullied about their stuttering suggests that their peers’ perceptions of them are negative. Given the few studies on this topic, additional research is needed concerning school-based social-communication dynamics between students who stutter and their peers. Much could be gained from an understanding of interpersonal and group communicative dynamics associated with listeners’ beliefs, feelings, and attitudes toward students who stutter. In that regard, Langevin and Hagler (2004) stated that “there is an urgent need for objective data regarding peer attitudes toward children who stutter” (p. 139). Assessing the attitudes that students have of a peer who stutters is important because attitudes are linked to behaviors and people strive to be consistent about what they think and how they behave (Feldman, 1993). From a theoretical perspective, attempts have been made to assess attitudes towards individuals by examining inter-relationships of how people think, feel, and behave. Past studies have used a theoretical model comprised of interrelated affective, behavioral, and cognitive (ABC) components (Feldman, 1993 and Langevin and Hagler, 2004; Lilienfeld & Alant, 2002; Ostrom, 1969; Rosenbaum, Armstrong, & King, 1986). A typical ABC model entails (a) affective responses relating to an individual's feelings toward a person, (b) behavioral responses relating to an individual's intents toward a person (i.e., I would walk home with a kid who stutters), and (c) cognitive responses relating to an individual's thoughts or beliefs toward a person. Using a similar multidimensional model to assess peers’ attitudes toward another peer who stutters within a school setting provides a framework from which to interpret those perceptions. It is possible that many of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive perceptions associated with a teenager who stutters might be different between teenage boys and girls. Weisel and Spektor (1998) found male high school students assigned more negative attributes toward hypothetical male and female adolescents who stutter than what female high school students assigned on a subset of personality attributes from the Semantic Differential Scale developed by Woods and Williams (1976).2 However, Hartford and Leahy (2007) found no significant difference in male and female primary school-age childrens’ (6–13 years) perceptions when they listened to an adult speaker using simulated stuttering. Similarly, Langevin and Hagler (2004) also found no significant difference among males and females in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades (8–13 years) who viewed a video tape of a 9-year-old male who stutters and an 8-year-old female who stutters. The inconsistent findings of the studies above show that it is unclear how males and females perceive a teenager who stutters. Given the lack of studies examining the perceptions of middle school-age male and female students toward a teen who stutters who is similar in age to middle school students, additional research seems warranted.3 Data regarding how middle school students perceive stuttering will further our understanding of their attitudes toward a peer who stutters. This information also could assist speech-language pathologists to enhance the social relationships for students who stutter and could offer insights to stuttering intervention for disfluent speakers who are of middle school age. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to better understand how middle school students (10–14 years of age) perceive a teenage male who stutters who is considered a peer. More specifically, this study sought to determine if middle school students’ affective (feelings and emotions), behavioral (speech production characteristics), and cognitive (thoughts and beliefs) perceptions of a peer who stutters are influenced by the frequency of his stuttering. The following research questions were addressed: (1) Do various frequencies of stuttering (<1%, 5%, 10%, and 14%) impact middle school students’ perceptions of a teenage male who stutters? (2) Do middle school students’ affective, behavioral, and cognitive perceptions of the teenage male who stutters change as a function of stuttering frequency? (3) Is there a difference between male and female students in their perceptions a teenage male who stutters?