Communicative ability conceptions among children who stutter and their fluent peers: A qualitative exploration

Journal of Fluency Disorders 30 (2005) 41–64

Communicative ability conceptions amongchildren who stutter and their fluent peers:

A qualitative exploration

Amit Bajaj∗, Barbara Hodsonb, Carol Westbyc

a Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Emerson College, 120 Boylston St., Boston, MA02116, USA

bWichita State University, USAc University of New Mexico, USA

Received 10 December 2004; received in revised form 28 December 2004; accepted 14 January 2005

Abstract

Meta issues in stuttering were examined by analyzing verbal-descriptive data drawn from structuredinterviews with 23 male children who stutter (CWS) and their 23 fluent male peers. Participantsdescribed others’ “good” and “bad” talk behaviors and provided their self-appraisals as talkers.Analysis of interview transcripts suggested that CWS favored unidimensional criteria for describingothers’ talk behaviors, where others’ speech–language forms, particularly allusions to stutteringbehaviors, were noted most commonly in the descriptions. In contrast, children who did not stutterused multidimensional criteria to describe others’ talk behaviors, where others’ speech–languageforms and pragmatic behaviors were weighted evenly, particularly for positive descriptions.Additionally, many CWS expressed reservations in describing themselves as “good talkers,” whereastheir fluent peers provided mainly positive appraisals of their own talking abilities. Outcomes provideevidence that early conceptions of communicative abilities among CWS are influenced by theirstuttering experiences and diverge from early communicative ability conceptions among their fluentpeers.

Educational objectives:The reader will learn about and be able to; (1) recognize the relevanceof examining communicative ability conceptions among children who stutter within the context ofeducational research on ability conceptions in children; (2) identify qualitative methods used to an-

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 617 824 8305; fax: +1 617 824 8735.E-mail address:amit [email protected] (A. Bajaj).

0094-730X/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2005.01.002

42 A. Bajaj et al. / Journal of Fluency Disorders 30 (2005) 41–64

alyze interviews with participants; and (3) appreciate the role of personal experiences in shapingcommunicative ability conceptions among children who stutter.© 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Children; Interviews; Meta; Qualitative; Stuttering

1. Introduction

Children’s burgeoning abilities to appraise attributes, competencies, and traits of othersand themselves is a copiously researched area in educational psychology. Psychologists havestudied children’s abilities for self-appraisal in diverse domains, such as manual dexterity(Stipek, 1984) and academic and social performance (Benenson & Dweck, 1986), in additionto examining developmental aspects and gender differences (Stipek & Hoffman, 1980) insuch abilities.Dweck (2002), who summarized the literature in this area, underscored theimportance of such research by pointing out the positive relationships between children’sself-appraisals of competence and their levels of achievement motivation.

Children’s abilities to describe communication behaviors of others and themselves havealso been examined, though to a limited extent.Kemper and Vernooy (1993)interviewed 23first graders to understand their “perceived notions of normal and abnormal communicationin others” (p. 45) and to examine variables that influence such notions. In their study,each participant listened to audio recorded segments of normal and disordered speech andresponded to the following four questions:How do you think a good talker talks, how doessomebody talk who doesn’ t talk so good, who are the best talkers in your room,andwhoare your best friends in the room. Kemper and Vernooy’s analysis of children’s interviewdata led them to conclude that children favor either “metalinguistic” or “metapragmatic”criteria to describe “good” and “not so good” talkers. Children who favored metalinguisticcriteria emphasized others’ speech and language structures in their descriptions. On theother hand, metapragmatic responses included references to social propriety of others’communicative behaviors. The authors found that children’s selections of “best talkers”among their classmates were influenced by their peers’ academic success and popularityand that such impressions were often fostered by classroom teachers.

Understandably, children’s meta awareness of parameters they consider important tocommunication is a prerequisite to their abilities to attach value judgments to communicativebehaviors.Kemper and Vernooy (1993)parsed a potentially vast array of such parameters intwo categories—metalinguistic and metapragmatic—that emerged from the interview data.By examining the relative weights that the first graders assigned to linguistic and pragmaticcriteria in describing “good talkers” and “not so good talkers,” the investigators obtainedinsights into children’s priorities regarding communicative behaviors.

This meta issue has remained unexamined for children who stutter (hereafter, CWS).Paradoxically, although there is scant research on metalinguistic abilities of CWS (Bajaj,1997; Bajaj, Hodson, & Schommer-Aikins, 2004) or metalinguistic development related tofluency (Blodgett & Cooper, 1988), there has been sustained interest in stuttering awarenessamong CWS. Awareness of stuttering has been documented among fluent children (Ezrati-

A. Bajaj et al. / Journal of Fluency Disorders 30 (2005) 41–64 43

Vinacour, Platzky, & Yairi, 2001) and preschool children who stutter (Ambrose & Yairi,1994), and there is evidence to suggest that such awareness among CWS develops in asystematic manner (Bloodstein, 1960; Van Riper, 1971). Indeed, children’s awareness oftheir stuttering was highlighted under the Diagnosogenic theory, with the recommendationthat caregivers should discourage the awareness of stuttering in children to prevent theemergence of stuttering (Johnson, 1942, 1959). Stuttering awareness is also subsumed inmany studies on communication attitudes among CWS (De Nil & Brutten, 1990; Smits-Bandstra & Yovetich, 2003; Vanryckeghem & Brutten, 1996; Vanryckeghem, Hylebos,Brutten, & Peleman, 2001) because it represents the cognitive component of the attitudeconstruct.

Examining communicative ability conceptions among CWS is pertinent given strongresearch evidence that children’s conceptions of ability determine their motivation patternsand behavioral choices (seeDweck, 2002, for review). FollowingKemper and Vernooy(1993), one way to understand such conceptualizations is by examining the connotationsthat children attach to the terms “good talking” and “bad talking” based on their variedexperiences. This issue is germane for CWS because their experiences regarding commu-nication may be atypical relative to their fluent peers. Accordingly, the criteria they employfor describing communicative behaviors of others and themselves may be telling of theirexperiences and early conceptions of communicative ability. For instance, if the criteria thatCWS employ to describe “good” and “bad” talking behaviors of others and themselves aremarkedly different from those employed by their fluent peers, then the unique nature of theexperiences that shaped their criteria may be revealed. On the other hand, if the criteria thatCWS use for describing others’ communicative behaviors are similar to those of their fluentpeers, then commonalities persist in the weights that both groups assign to their experiences,regardless of the impairment status of one group. Either way, by examining the criteria thatare used for differentiating “good” from “bad” talking, there is potential for learning aboutthe communicative priorities of CWS and their fluent peers.

Such an investigation may be well matched with qualitative modes of inquiry that allowaccess to respondents’ experiences and meaning systems relevant to the focus of inquiry.Qualitative methodologies are upheld as being highly effective in yielding rich descriptionsof individuals’ values and priorities regarding the phenomena of interest (Patton & Westby,1992), and their potential in communication disorders is now well documented (Damico &Simmons-Mackie, 2003; Simmons-Mackie & Damico, 2003; Tetnowski & Damico, 2001;Tetnowski & Franklin, 2003).

Although there have been some attempts to understand clinician-client roles in stutteringmanagement (Bar, 1969) and cultural and institutional factors in stuttering treatment (Gorin,1980) from qualitative perspectives, qualitative methodologies have not been used to anysignificant extent in stuttering research. Instead, there are several empirical studies thathave used self-reports to illuminate the experiences of persons who stutter (e.g.,Gabel,Colcord, & Petrosino, 2001; Watson, 1988). Nonexperimental studies in stuttering, featuringparticipant interviews and/or qualitative analyses, are of relatively recent interest as fewresearchers have employed such methodologies to understand stuttering experiences ofadults (Corcoran & Stewart, 1998; Crichton-Smith, 2002; Kathard, 2001), perspectives ofspouses of persons who stutter (Boberg & Boberg, 1990), and listeners’ impressions offluent and stuttered speech and components contributing to perceptions of communicative


effectiveness (Susca & Healey, 2002). Other topics examined from qualitative perspectivesinclude the nature of stuttering treatment (Corcoran & Stewart, 1995), adults’ self reportsregarding specific stuttering treatments (Cream, Onslow, Packman, & Llewellyn, 2003),recovery from stuttering (Anderson & Felsenfeld, 2003), and use of nonverbal behaviors,such as gaze shifts, as compensatory strategies in stuttering (Tetnowski & Damico, 2001).

The current study used qualitative methods to examine the criteria used by CWS andtheir fluent peers in describing positive and negative communicative behaviors of othersand the participants’ self-appraisals as communicators. Such appraisals relate to children’scommunicative ability conceptions and have the potential to expand our notions of the psy-chological underpinnings to stuttering and, ultimately, to encourage us to consider additionalvariables in treating the disorder.

2. Method

A qualitative approach, involving structured interviews and analysis of interview tran-scripts, was used to collect and analyze verbal-descriptive data from participants in thisstudy. The investigative orientation adopted here was inductive, in that verbal data wereprocessed manually to derive thematic categories as outcomes; the posited categories, inturn, served to describe and explain the data. This orientation was matched with the constantcomparative method for data analysis. The method is a set of discovery procedures to guideinvestigators in identifying verbal information relevant to the inquiry, developing codingprocedures to structure the relevant information as data units, comparing data units to un-derstand their underlying relationships, and positing descriptive categories that encapsulatethe emergent content as themes in the data (seeLincoln & Guba, 1985).

2.1. Participants

The participants were 46 male children, attending kindergarten through second grade,who were selected from the midwestern region of the United States. They included 23CWS and 23 children who did not stutter (hereafter, CWNS). The participants ranged inage from 5:10 to 8:10 (years:months).Table 1provides participants’ age ranges and averageage per group (CWS and CWNS) at each grade level. Among 46 participants, 10 were inkindergarten, 24 were in first grade, and 12 were in second grade. There were equal numbersof CWS and CWNS at each grade level. One participant (CWS) was of Hispanic origin, andthe rest were Caucasian. English was reported as the native language of all participants.

Table 1Age ranges and average age of CWS and CWNS in kindergarten, first, and second grades

Grade CWS CWNS

Age range Average age Age range Average age

Kindergarten 5:10–7:6 6:3 6:0–6:9 6:4First 6:8–8:3 7:3 6:8–7:11 7:1Second 7:8–8:9 8:4 7:9–8:10 8:3


All participants were referred by the speech–language pathologists (hereafter, SLPs) inthe schools. Per SLP and teacher reports, none of the participants evidenced organic anoma-lies, neurological conditions, or hearing deficits. The SLPs were asked to refer children whowere performing at or above grade levels in academic ability. This was verified by the SLPsat the time of data collection.

2.1.1. CWSIndividualized Education Plans (IEPs) were available for 21 of 23 participants in this

group. The IEPs documented the services these children were receiving for stutteringthrough their school systems. Stuttering had been identified as an area of concern for theremaining two participants, but their evaluation and placement for services had not yet oc-curred at the time of data collection; hence, no IEPs were available for these children. SLPsand teacher reports indicated that organic, neurological, and hearing status was typical forthese children, which was verified through their IEPs.

Two speech samples—narrative (story-telling) and conversational—were obtained fromCWS during data collection. The narrative sample was used to estimate the frequency ofstuttering in percentage of stuttered words (PSW). PSW values for all CWS ranged from0 to 20% (Mean = 5.61; S.D. = 5.78). It was noted that narrative samples might not haveadequately represented the typical stuttering behaviors of six CWS. For these six CWS,additional PSW values were estimated from the conversational sample. Those values rangedfrom 2 to 18% (Mean = 8.83; S.D. = 5.98). It should be noted that PSW values are providedhere to show the wide range of stuttering frequencies among CWS in this sample. Theyshould, however, be interpreted with caution because, for most CWS, they are based onone narrative sample, which may have been limited in representing participants’ stutteringbehaviors.

Among the 23 participants in this group, 8 had additional speech and language concerns; 5of the 8 were being treated concomitantly for speech sound disorders, 1 was being monitoredfor speech sound errors, and 2 participants were receiving treatment for both speech sounddisorders and language problems. Further, one participant was reported to have had a historyof speech–sound problems, which apparently had been normalized at the time of this study.Despite concomitant speech and language concerns, the children were included in the studyfor two reasons: first, in all such cases, the referring SLPs had identified stuttering asthe main concern because of its severity, perceived impact on the child, and/or parentalconcerns; other communication impairments were considered to be mild in comparison.Second, concomitant speech sound and language difficulties among CWS have been notedwidely in research, leading to the contention that such children constitute a subgroup amongthe population of CWS (Conture, 1991; Cullinan & Springer, 1980; McKnight & Cullinan,1987). Given the robust nature of this finding, we opted to include such participants in thesample in an effort to better represent the population of CWS.

2.1.2. CWNSParticipants in this group were reported, according to SLPs and teachers, to have typical

communicative abilities, average-to-better academic performance, and no history of speechand language concerns that required intervention. Accordingly, these participants did nothave IEPs. With one exception, children in this group were drawn from the same class-


rooms from which the CWS had been selected. Given evidence that children’s reading andwriting skills interact with their metalinguistic and metacognitive abilities (Wong, 1985,1988), selecting grade-matched pairs (who were also age-matched, on average, within 6months) from the same classroom provided some uniformity in the educational backgroundand academic experiences of the sample. The selection criteria, therefore, helped controlparticipants’ variances along developmental and educational parameters.

2.2. Data collection

Data for this study was collected as part of a larger investigation of metalinguistic be-haviors of CWS and CWNS (seeBajaj, 1997). The structured interview featured in thecurrent study was initiated after over an hour of data collection that involved interactionbetween the primary investigator and the participants. The data collection process began byengaging each participant in a short conversation regarding their favorite sports or interestsand included administration of standardized tasks to obtain data on participants’ metalin-guistic behaviors, including phoneme manipulation and grammatical awareness (seeBajajet al., 2004). Therefore, the primary investigator and participants had ample opportunitiesto develop rapport before commencing the interview.

The primary investigator conducted a structured interview individually with each par-ticipant. The following three main questions were posed sequentially to each participant:How does a good talker talk, how does a bad talker talk,andwhat kind of talker are you.As mentioned previously, these questions were modeled, in part, afterKemper and Ver-nooy (1993), who had asked their participants,how do you think a good talker talks, andhow does somebody talk who doesn’ t talk so good.Kemper and Vernooy’s aforementionedquestions were used during a pilot test for the current study. It was noted during this phasethat children appeared to have considerable difficulty in responding to the second question,how does somebody talk who doesn’ t talk so good,perhaps owing to the manner in which itwas worded. Accordingly, that question was modified tohow does a bad talker talk,whichis grammatically matched with the first question,how does a good talker talk,yet contrastspointedly with it in content.

Each interview was audio recorded and prefaced with the following comments:I amgoing to ask you some questions about talking. There are no right or wrong answers.I just want to know what you think. Following these comments, the first question wasposed:How does a good talker talk. Several supplementary questions were asked to probeparticipants’ responses. FollowingPatton (1990), the supplementary questions served as(a) detail-oriented probes:Do you know somebody who’s a good talker,and (b) elaborationprobes:What is it about their talking that tells you they’ re a good talker. Other probes wereused to seek clarifications, such astalk that way formeandtell me that one again. Additionalfollow-up questions also were used to elicit detailed responses (e.g.,tell me more). Onefollow-up question,do you know somebody who’s a good (or bad) talker, was used as astandard probe for all participants. During a pilot test for this study, this question was foundparticularly useful for obtaining eloquent and in-depth responses, perhaps because it helpedchildren “locate” mentally the type of speaker they were describing. Other supplementaryquestions were used in a discretionary manner, in that they were used selectively to drawdetailed responses from each participant.


After each participant had responded thoroughly to the initial set of main and follow-upquestions regarding good talking, the second set of questions was posed, starting withhowdoes a bad talker talk. Supplementary questions in this set included,do you know somebodywho’s a bad talker, what is it about their talking that tells you they’ re bad talkers, give mean example of their talking,or talk that way for me.

Finally, the third set of questions was posed, starting withwhat kind of talker are you.Follow-up questions, whenever used, includedwhy,andwhat is it about your talking thattells you’ re a good (or bad) talker.

2.3. Data analysis

Participants’ interviews lasted up to 12 min. The investigator–participant conversations,which were audio recorded, were transcribed verbatim to obtain verbal-descriptive datafor analysis. According toMaykut and Morehouse (1994), “the process of qualitative dataanalysis takes many forms, but it is fundamentally a nonmathematical analytical procedurethat involves examining the meaning of people’s words and actions. Qualitative researchfindings are inductively derived from this data” (p. 121). In the current study, data anal-ysis involved drawing “units of meaning” from 46 transcripts of investigator–participantconversations and scrutinizing such units for emergent patterns or themes. An interviewtranscript featuring the exchange between the interviewer/primary investigator and a CWSis included in theAppendix Afor reference. Analysis of verbal data was based on the Con-stant Comparative Method, originally outlined byGlaser and Strauss (1967)and elaboratedby Lincoln and Guba (1985). Each step followed in this process is summarized below.

2.3.1. Extracting units of meaning from the dataA verbal data unit is a statement or group of statements generally elicited from examiners’

questions, which is complete in itself and interpreted with regard to the focus of inquiry(Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). Such data units are also called discrete responses. One ormore discrete responses that are thematically related constitute a unit of meaning. Transcriptswere read meticulously for discrete responses to each topical question in order to gleansuch units of meaning.Lincoln and Guba (1985)recommended that “during this unitizingphase of data processing, the analyst should error on the side of overinclusion” (p. 346).Accordingly, each unit of meaning was printed on a 5 in.× 8 in. index card along with thenumber and nature of discrete responses that constituted that unit. Information identifyingthe speaker, his group membership (CWS or CWNS), and transcript location was printed onthe reverse. The following segment culled from a transcribed interaction (lines 5–7, 13–21in transcript inAppendix A) between the interviewer (I) and participant (P) illustrates this:

I: Tell me what about their talking tells you they’re good talkers.P: When they don’t stutter, kinda go “mm, mm, mm,” like, when they’re trying to speak,they don’t push their tongue that hard on their teeth.I: So what would talking without stuttering sound like?P: Taking an easy breath, like when you catch yourself, you’re supposed to go [inhalesdeeply]. Then you’re supposed to talk when the air is coming out, like [exhales slightly]“Hello, my name is John.” [name changed to preserve anonymity]


I: What kind of talking is that?P: Good talking.I: Okay. Tell me what else about their talking tells you they’re good talkers.P: They just don’t talk very fancy, they like, don’t brag, and they tell the truth and not lies.That’s all.

In this exchange, the participant’s responses, “they don’t stutter (with illustrations)” and“taking an easy breath (with illustrations)” were considered discrete because the formerindicated absence of stuttering behavior and the latter indicated the presence of fluentbehavior (this participant’s distinction between the two became more apparent later inthe interview). Of course, these responses are thematically related because both allude tofluency. Here, the unit of meaning was labeled “fluency” on an index card, and the discreteresponses (“they don’t stutter” and “taking an easy breath”) that comprised it were listedunderneath the label. Similarly, “talking fancy” became another unit of meaning, comprisedof two discrete responses, “don’t brag” and “tell the truth and not lies.” It is noteworthy thatin many other instances one discrete response constituted a unit of meaning by itself.

2.3.2. Discovering patterns or themes in the dataOnce the transcripts had been unitized on index cards, the next step involved contrasting

and comparing units of meaning to identify thematic categories into which the units couldbe classified. Using “look/feel-alike” criteria (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) for evaluating simi-larities and differences between units of meaning, three thematic categories were posited toencapsulate participants’ responses to the first two question sets:How does a good talkertalk,andhow does a bad talker talk. The categories were entitled “form-based responses,”“pragmatically based responses,” and “tangential and ambiguous responses.” Responses tothe third question set,what kind of talker are you,were grouped into two categories thatemerged from the data: “categorical responses” and “qualified responses.” Thematic cat-egories, which are outcomes of discovery procedures in qualitative research, typically areconstrued as findings in qualitative studies (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994) and are elaboratedin Section3.

2.3.3. Sorting index cards into emergent categories according to group membershipOnce the initial set of thematic categories was confirmed, response cards (index cards

containing units of meaning and discrete responses) were sorted according to the categoriesto which they belonged. After all cards had been stacked in categories, they were re-stackedwithin each category, this time on the basis of group membership. Discrete responses werecounted to obtain “numerical scores” for each participant; the scores represented the totalresponses within each category for each group. This allowed numerical analysis of quali-tative data, under which percentage of responses across categories (for first two questions)and number of respondents (for the third question) became the basis for comparing theverbal data from CWS and CWNS.

2.3.4. Securing trustworthy dataIt has been noted that objectivity in data collection and analysis is key to establishing

credibility and trustworthiness of outcomes, regardless of the research paradigm (Patton &


Westby, 1992; Tetnowski & Damico, 2001). The following measures were taken to securemethodological rigor.

1. Qualitative modes of inquiry rely critically on “thehuman-as-instrumentfor the col-lection and analysis of data” (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p. 26); consequently, theexperience and skill of researchers becomes central to securing rigor in the researchprocess. Two of the three investigators in this study were trained and invested in qualita-tive research, albeit with different levels of experience. Further, all three emanated fromdifferent backgrounds, which allowed for a diversity of perspectives and some controlof personal biases.

2. The primary investigator interviewed all participants; this provided uniformity in datacollection. As mentioned, the study was commenced after piloting the interview pro-tocol with a few children that matched the age and grade of the CWNS in the currentsample. The pilot phase provided the interviewer the opportunity to obtain guidance andadditional experience in refining his interview style, such as maintaining consistency ineye contact, number and type of comments, and number and nature of probing questionsacross the participant set. As noted previously, it was during the pilot phase thatKemperand Vernooy’s (1993)second question,how does somebody talk who doesn’t talk sogood,was revised tohow does a bad talker talk.

3. Questions included in the interview protocol were developmentally appropriate for par-ticipants in the sample. Structurally, they were short, simple sentences designed as openquestions to elicit copious responses. Semantically, the questions were consistent withdevelopmental literature where there is evidence to support that young children com-prehend the notions of “goodness” and “badness” and use them to guide their socialbehavior (seeDweck, 2002).

4. Audio recording and transcription was carried out with meticulous attention to detail,so that good data quality was assured through repeated audio playback and verbatimtranscriptions. All audio and paper media were preserved, and response cards weredeveloped from photocopies of transcripts, allowing for a visible audit trail of the data.

5. The primary investigator transcribed and unitized the transcripts; however, once theinitial set of thematic categories began to emerge, input was sought from others for fine-tuning the emergent themes. This involved resorting the index cards in the categoriesto confirm their appropriate placement, discussions among investigators regarding thesuitability of terminology used in the categories, and suggestions of alternative titles thatwould best represent the true nature of responses they contained. The aforementionedcategories are outcomes of this review and refinement process. It is noteworthy thattwo of the three thematic categories that were grounded in the data from the first twoquestions were remarkably similar to those posited byKemper and Vernooy (1993), whostudied similar phenomena. This provides additional validity to the thematic categoriesproposed here.

6. Finally, interjudge reliability was established for sorting response cards into all thematiccategories. An experienced SLP was solicited as a reliability assistant. The nature ofcategories and illustrations of responses within each was explained to the reliabilityassistant, who independently sorted response cards of 10 participants into all categories.Initially, 86% agreement between the primary investigator and the reliability assistant


was obtained. They then conferred and resolved their differences by consensus. Giventhe subjective nature of verbal data, the initial percentage agreement is interpreted as“high” because it exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.60 for group data reported bySalvia and Ysseldyke (1991).

3. Outcomes

Qualitative analysis, being an inductive process of discovery, resulted in the developmentof thematic categories posited to account for patterns in the verbal data. This section includesa discussion of the thematic categories that emerged from the descriptive data and the group-wise distribution of responses in the thematic categories that formed the basis for groupcomparisons.

3.1. Emergence of criteria for describing communicative behaviors

Discrete responses from all participants to the first two questions,how does a goodtalker talk,andhow does a bad talker talkwere grouped into three thematic categories;these categories represented the criteria that participants used for describing communicativebehaviors of others. The categories are described as follows:

1. Form-based criteria: These included verbal data units in which participants had identifiedspeech and language forms as the basis for describing others’ communicative behaviors.Table 2includes a sample of responses to the first two questions that typified form-basedcriteria.

2. Pragmatically based criteria: Included were verbal data units in which participants iden-tified speakers’ pragmatic behaviors as the basis for describing their communicative abil-ities. Some responses that typified pragmatically based criteria are provided inTable 3.It is important to note that almost all participants provided responses towards bothcategories: form-based and pragmatically based. For instance, the participant in theaforementioned interview excerpt stated that good talkers, “don’t stutter” (form-basedresponse), “don’t brag” and “tell the truth and not lies” (both pragmatically based re-

Table 2Sample of responses obtained from participants to the questions, ‘how does a good talker talk,’ and ‘how does abad talker talk,’ that typify form-based criteria

How does a good talker talk How does a bad talker talk

When they don’t stutter, kinda go ‘mm, mm, mm,’like when they’re trying to speak they don’tpush their tongue that hard on their teeth

They can’t read fast. . . they can’t read the words,they don’t know them

They have a nice voice. And they speak loud My brother is a bad talker because he doesn’tknow all his sounds, like a baby

He talks clear and he doesn’t mumble. . . hedoesn’t stutter. . . he talks medium, not fast orslow . . . he doesn’t stop between words.

They don’t say stuff that they’re supposed to, likethey say ‘seen’ instead of ‘saw.’


Table 3Sample of responses obtained from participants to the questions, ‘how does a good talker talk,’ and ‘how does abad talker talk,’ that typify pragmatically based criteria

How does a good talker talk How does a bad talker talk

They talk kinda nice. . . like, they say politewords, like they say ‘thank you’ and ‘please’and stuff like that

They tell lies. . . they use naughty words

Well, they don’t yell out the answer wheneverthey’re in the classroom

Bad talkers, they use cuss words and all kinds ofmean words. And they use put downs

They use no bad words and stuff like that. . . theydon’t put down or anything like that... ‘No! Idon’t want you to play with my dolls!’ That’sa put down

Talks out. . . doesn’t raise his hand when he needsto talk

sponses). Some participants also provided additional responses that were consideredtangential/ambiguous.

3. Tangential/ambiguous responses: This category included two types of responses. Firstwere responses in which participants had selected attributes unrelated to communicationas the basis of describing others’ communicative behaviors. Responses in this categoryincluded, “she’s a good talker because she goes to church a lot,” and “lets me buy some-thing from the dollar store.” The second were responses that were deemed ambiguousor indeterminate in nature. These were final responses where participants had eitherexpressed an inability to respond, such as “I don’t know” or had responded withoutspecificity. For example, a response, such as “she talks nice” [in reply tohow does agood talker talk], which remained unchanged after many probes, is ambiguous from acommunication standpoint. It is impossible to determine from this final response whetherthe participant used talking “nice” to refer to speech–language forms (i.e. loudness, rateof speech, fluency, language features, etc.) used by the speaker or pragmatic use of suchforms or both. Other ambiguous responses included “he talks cool” and “talks nice andpretty.”

The first two categories, form-based responses and pragmatically based responses, whereparticipants had alluded to communicative behaviors of speakers, together accounted for themajority of responses elicited from all participants. These categories encompassed 74% ofthe responses relating to the question,how does a good talker talk,and 84% of the responsesrelating to the question,how does a bad talker talk.

Discrete responses to the third main question,what kind of talker are you,were groupedinto the following two categories:

1. Categorical responses, where participants made unequivocal claims that they were eithergood or bad talkers and provided reasons for their response.

2. Qualified responses, which included equivocal responses that needed further elaboration.Data excerpts that illustrate these categories are presented inTable 4.

Unlike the first two questions, the third question yielded responses that were dichotomousin that each participant was considered to have given a single response and that each responsewas considered either categorical or qualified; that is, participants gave 46 discrete responses


Table 4Sample of responses obtained from participants to the question, ‘what kind of talker are you,’ that were categorizedas categorical or qualified responses

Categorical responses Qualified responses

I’m a good talker. . . I don’t stutter, and plus, Ithink before I talk

I’m kinda both [good and bad talker]. . . becauseI push my tongue on my teeth and I stutter. I don’tbrag or tell lies

I’m a good talker. I can read fast I think I’m kinda average. I might get mad becausemy friends say ‘I’m not going to be your friendno more.’ If they say that and get into a fight, Imight just say rude things and all that

I’m a good talker because I don’t mess up thatmuch . . . I would say ‘will you come to myhouse?’ I wouldn’t say, instead of ‘house,’ Iwouldn’t say ‘mouse.’ I would say ‘house.’

I’m a good talker. . . sometimes. I’m half goodtalker, half bad talker. . . like, when I slow downI’m a good talker. But when I go fast I’m a badtalker

to the third question,what kind of talker are you. Of these, 32 responses (70%) werecategorical and 14 responses (30%) were qualified.

3.2. Group-wise percentage distribution of discrete responses within categories

As mentioned previously, index cards containing units of meaning and discrete responseswere re-sorted within each posited category according to group membership. Thus, group-wise percentage distribution of discrete responses within categories became the basis forcomparing the groups on the first two questions. The questions,how does a good talkertalk andhow does a bad talker talk, are similar and contrast with the question,what kind oftalker are you. Thus, outcomes relating to the first two questions are presented first. Giventhat the focus of inquiry in the current study was to examine the criteria that participantsused for describing communicative behaviors and the finding that the majority addressedcommunicative behaviors in their responses (i.e., 74% responses for good talking, 84%for bad talking), responses in the “Tangential/Ambiguous Responses” category were notconsidered for group comparison.

As mentioned earlier, almost every participant provided a corpus of responses, wheresome were categorized as form-based and others pragmatically based. By adding the numberof discrete responses within each category for each participant it was possible to calculatethe total number of responses per group in each category. The groups differed, however,in the total number of responses. Accordingly percentages were obtained to represent theproportion of responses for each group that were form-based and pragmatically based.Table 5summarizes numerical data pertaining to discrete responses to the questions,howdoes a good talker talk,andhow does a bad talker talk. Responses are presented as categorytotals, percentages and grand totals.

For the first question, percentages indicate that the majority of responses by CWS relatedto form-based criteria (74%), with a relatively small percentage of responses categorizedunder pragmatically based criteria (26%). In contrast, percentage distribution of responsesby the CWNS group was evenly split between form-based criteria (50%) and pragmaticallybased criteria (50%), indicating that they considered both criteria equally in their positive


Table 5Discrete response numbers, percentages, and totals (excluding tangential/ambiguous response totals) for CWSand CWNS obtained from the questions, ‘how does a good talker talk,’ and ‘how does a bad talker talk’

Form-based responses Pragmatically based responses Total discrete responses

Number Percentage (%) Number Percentage (%)

How does a good talker talkCWS 26 74 9 26 35CWNS 21 50 21 50 42

How does a bad talker talkCWS 25 61 16 39 41CWNS 16 44 20 56 36

Percentages include round number adjustments.

descriptions of communicative behaviors. Such distributions indicate that, relative to theirfluent peers, CWS relied more on form-based criteria and less on pragmatically basedcriteria in their positive descriptions of others’ communicative behaviors.

A comparable pattern of responses is evident for the second question. Percentages againsuggest that CWS relied more on form-based criteria (61% responses) than pragmaticallybased criteria (39% responses) in describing others’ negative communicative behaviors,although these percentage values were less skewed than those for the question, how does agood talker talk. Interestingly, CWNS favored pragmatically based criteria (56% responses)over form-based criteria (44% responses) in their descriptions of others’ negative commu-nicative behaviors.

Given the consistency with which CWS favored form-based criteria over pragmaticallybased criteria, responses within each category were scrutinized further to check for dom-inant response types. A dominant response was construed as the most common responsewithin each of the aforementioned categories. Within form-based criteria, presence/absenceof stuttering emerged as the dominant response of CWS, in that 53% of their form-basedresponses alluded to stuttering behaviors (e.g., “a good talker is one who doesn’t stutter”versus “a bad talker is one who usually stutters”). The remaining responses alluded to rateof speech, such as “talks medium, not fast or slow;” voice features, such as “they speakloud;” grammaticality, such as “they say sentences straight;” and articulation characteris-tics of speakers, such as “they’re able to get their r-sounds out.” In contrast, no dominantresponse type emerged for CWNS under form-based criteria. Only 17% of their responseshad references to others’ stuttering behaviors, with other responses alluding to rate, voice,and other speech characteristics of speakers.

Within pragmatically based responses, presence/absence of polite behaviors emerged asa dominant response type for both groups (54% for CWS, 62% for CWNS). Representativeresponses included:

[a good talker] Says nice things to me, like ‘thank you.’[a bad talker] He cusses a lot when he gets mad.[bad talkers] They say mean things.


Fig. 1. Group-wise distribution of number of participants who provided categorical and qualified responses to thequestion,what kind of talker are you.

For the third question, what kind of talker are you, groups’ responses were classifiedas categorical or qualified. Owing to the binary nature of responses to this question, therewas one-to-one correspondence between the number of cards and the number of discreteresponses. It was possible, therefore, to determine the number of participants in each groupthat provided each type (categorical or qualified) of response.Fig. 1presents the group-wisedistribution of participants who provided each type of response. The numbers indicate thatCWS provided more qualified responses than CWNS. Of the 14 total qualified responses,11 were made by CWS. Upon closer scrutiny, it was observed that 9 of the 11 participantswho provided qualified responses alluded to their stuttering. Some responses included:

Mostly bad [talker]. . . I push my tongue on my teeth and I stutter [line 63, 65 inAppendixA].I mess up a couple of times. I say ‘Jake’ [name changed to preserve anonymity] and I sayit again.I’m half good when I slow down, I’m half bad when I go fast.

In contrast to the 12 CWS who provided categorical responses to the question, whatkind of talker are you, 20 CWNS provided categorical responses to the same question. It isnoteworthy that participants in both groups who provided categorical responses referred tothemselves as good talkers. This finding is consistent with the research literature in abilityconceptions where it has been noted that young children’s self-appraisals are often highlypositive across multiple and diverse domains (seeButler, 1990).

By considering the pattern of group-wise percentage distribution of responses in variousthematic categories, a number of outcomes are immediately apparent. First, CWS tendedto describe communicative behaviors of others from unidimensional perspectives, in which


they gave precedence to speech and language forms, such as fluency, rate, voice quality,articulation, and grammaticality characteristics of speakers, in their descriptions. Amongsuch forms, presence or absence of stuttering in speakers featured most prominently as thebasis for the descriptions. In contrast, CWNS considered multidimensional perspectives indescribing others’ communicative behaviors; form-based criteria and pragmatically basedcriteria were weighted equally in their positive descriptions, and pragmatically based criteriawere favored over form-based criteria for their negative descriptions. Further, in sharpcontrast to their dysfluent peers, they did not attune to the presence or absence of stutteringto guide their form-based descriptions to any significant extent. Second, relative to CWNS,CWS evidenced more reservations in referring to themselves as good talkers. They providedconsiderably greater numbers of qualified responses to the question,what kind of talker areyouthan their fluent peers and referenced their stuttering experiences in their explanations.

Given the preponderance of responses by CWS that included some reference to stutteringbehaviors, we thought it valuable to examine further the responses of eight CWS withconcomitant articulation or language concerns. Responses from five CWS with concomitantcommunication concerns are presented inTable 6. Responses from the remaining threeCWS with similar concomitant concerns resembled closely those provided in the table. Itwas found that responses from this subgroup paralleled the responses obtained from CWSwithout concomitant communication concerns; that is, there is no evidence that responsesobtained from this subgroup of CWS with concomitant communication concerns wereatypical in comparison with those obtained from CWS without concomitant concerns.

Table 6Responses from five CWS with concomitant speech–sound or language concerns to the questions, ‘how does agood talker talk,’ ‘how does a bad talker talk,’ and ‘what kind of talker are you’

How does a good talker talk How does a bad talker talk What kind of talker are you

I don’t know . . . Joanna [namechanged to preserve anonymity]in my class is a good talker. . .because she talks good some-times

Really bad. . . sometimes they spit I sometimes talk bad and some-times I talk good

They just talk good. . . I don’tknow [after follow-up ques-tions]

He says bad things, like “I’m notgoing to play with you at recess.”

Good talker. . . I talk slow andsometimes I talk fast. . . I don’ttry to get into fights. . . I don’t saybad words

They don’t stutter. . . it’s when wesay ‘to, to . . .’ One word thatyou say over [explaining stut-tering]

Saying bad words to another. . .saying cuss words

Good. . . I don’t say bad words

They don’t talk fast. . . He stutters a lot. . . other peopletalk straight and he stutters

Good talker. . . sort of, becausemostly I talk straight and don’tstutter

The words come out straight. . .doesn’t stumble on words, re-peat words

[They] stumble on words ... like,‘what, what, what. . .’

Don’t know . . . both, I guess. Inthe classroom I stumble on somewords


4. Discussion and implications

The outcomes of this study provide additional evidence that elementary grade CWShave a well-developed awareness of stuttering. In contrast to previous studies where childrenhave revealed their awareness through nonverbal means (Ambrose & Yairi, 1994), includingattitude scales (Brutten & Dunham, 1989; De Nil & Brutten, 1991; Ulliana & Ingham, 1984),the children in the current sample demonstrated the ability to verbalize their awareness inresponse to probing questions. The outcomes of this study go beyond previous findingsin other ways. Children in the current sample made creative use of their knowledge andawareness of parameters that comprise communication to shape their criteria for describingcommunicative abilities of others and themselves. Outcomes point to the unique nature ofcommunicative ability conceptions for each group. For CWS, good and bad talkers wereendowed or deficient principally in fluent, articulate, grammatical, or otherwise vocallyproficient speech and language behaviors. Among such behaviors, speakers’ stuttering orfluency appeared pivotal in shaping whether or not they would be considered good talkers.In contrast to reliance on such homogenous criteria, CWNS employed diverse criteria todescribe others’ communication, where they attended equally to the adequacy of speakers’speech–language forms and pragmatic behaviors in positive descriptions and gave slightprecedence to pragmatic behaviors in negative descriptions.

The following sample characteristics should be noted in interpreting the response patternsof CWS: (a) participants in this group were receiving treatment for stuttering, and (b) theirspeech contained a wide range of stuttering frequencies. On the other hand, CWNS (a)evidenced normal communication abilities and typical-to-above-average academic abilities,per SLP and teacher reports, and (b) were selected from the same classrooms as CWS. Giventhe similarities between the groups along developmental and educational parameters, theimpairment status of participants and associated experiences appear pivotal in influencingtheir conceptions of communicative abilities. In other words, participants personalized thecriteria for descriptions, though in different ways. It is most likely that CWS were highlyattuned to the speech behaviors (i.e., fluency, rate, voice, language, articulation, etc.) ofspeakers because they related to these behaviors through their personal experiences withspeech impairment. The preponderance of responses featuring stuttering as the dominantcriterion for judging others’ communicative behaviors suggests strongly that these childrenwere aware they stuttered and that their conceptions of communicative ability were shapedby their personal experiences with stuttering. The comparatively high percentage of qualifiedresponses to the question,what kind of talker are you,provides further support for this view.

CWNS, whose developmental status and educational background matched their nonflu-ent peers, drew upon a broader range of experiences to reveal well-rounded conceptionsof communicative ability. The tendency of both groups to select polite behaviors as thedominant pragmatically based criterion for describing others’ communication is anotheroutcome of this study.

Although it is apparent that the stuttering experiences of CWS predisposed them to con-strue “good” and “bad” talking from a unidimensional perspective, the notion of stutteringexperience itself is open to interpretation. There is a multitude of variables that may con-tribute to the stuttering experience of CWS, including (among others) time since stutteringonset, family history, self-assigned values, level of stuttering awareness, temperament, oth-


ers’ (parents/caregivers/peers, etc.) responses, atypical experiences, and treatment history(duration, frequency, type). Although we can conjecture about a wide (if not limitless) ar-ray of such variables, it is not possible within the focus of this inquiry and constraints ofthe current dataset to ascertain the extent to which the aforementioned and other variablesplayed a role in shaping the responses of CWS.

Among such a vast array of variables, however, the role of stuttering treatment in in-fluencing the responses of CWS in this study appears pivotal for two reasons. First, it isworth reiterating that, with the exception of two participants who had been identified with astuttering disorder but not treated for it at the time of data collection, 21 CWS were “similar”in that they all had some (though varying levels of) experience with stuttering treatment.Therefore, for most CWS in this study, their experience with stuttering treatment was anindelible part of their stuttering experiences. This is in striking contrast to CWNS who hadno experience with speech and language intervention of any kind. Second, responses ofsome CWS suggest that they used vocabulary and concepts from their treatment experi-ence to respond to the interviewer’s questions. This becomes apparent when the followingresponses by some CWS to the question,how does a good talker talk,are considered:

Taking an easy breath [line 14 inAppendix A]Talks slow as a turtle.Talks slow and easy, without bumpy and sticky talking.Talking slow and steady.

Similarly, in responding to the question,how does a bad talker talk,some CWS providedthe following comments:

Push their tongue hard on their teeth [line 41 inAppendix A].Bumpy and sticky talking.Switch words when trying to say something, when stuttering.

Expressions, such as “turtle talk,” “bumpy talking,” or “slow talking,” are commonlyincorporated in stuttering treatment protocols as are denunciations of avoidance behaviors,such as word substitutions. The presence of such treatment artifacts in the responses of someCWS suggests that these children culled popular concepts and vocabulary from their treat-ment experiences to shape their conceptions of communicative ability. It is worth pondering,therefore, whether treatment predisposed them to develop a heightened consciousness ofspeech–language behaviors, particularly stuttering and, in the process, shaped their largelyunidimensional conceptions of communicative ability.

In order to understand the role that stuttering treatment may have played in shapingthe stuttering experience of CWS, it would be valuable to replicate the current study withthree groups: CWS involved in stuttering treatment, CWS without involvement in stutteringtreatment, and CWNS. That said, we recognize the difficulties in locating a group of school-aged CWS not involved in stuttering treatment.

The infusion of treatment vocabulary in the responses of CWS also calls into questionSLPs’ role in fostering such conceptions. How do SLPs construe the terms, “good” and“bad talking?” Do they use expressions like “good talking” and “bad talking” to verballyreinforce children when they demonstrate a variety of apt communicative behaviors, or dothey tend to reserve such verbal praise for those occasions when their clients are fluent?


Leahy’s (2004)model for analyzing discourse in stuttering treatment can be relevant inexamining the questions posed here.

The current outcomes are provocative also because they lead us to ponder the potential re-lationships between communicative ability conceptions and self-efficacy in children.Miller(2002)had the following comment on the role of self-efficacy in children’s development:

The work on self-efficacy has two particularly important implications for develop-ment. First. . . the efficacy judgments most conducive to development are slightoverestimations, because these motivate children to try moderately challenging tasksthat could hone their present skills. The second implication concerns children’s mo-tivation to become self-directed learners. High self-efficacy is essential for persistingin the face of rejection (p. 189).

Connections between children’s ability conceptions, self-efficacy judgments, and mo-tivational patterns are well recognized by other researchers, most notably in educationalpsychology.Dweck (2002)pointed out the significance of children’s ability conceptions inthe following manner:

As these conceptions develop, children become more concerned about their ability andmore sensitive to evaluation, especially negative evaluation. Moreover, once they havedeveloped a clear and coherent understanding of ability, theparticular conception ofability they adopt will determine a great deal about their motivational patterns. It willinfluence such things as whether they seek and enjoy challenges and how resilientthey are in the face of setbacks (p. 57).

Such established connections have important ramifications for the outcomes of the cur-rent study. If communicative ability conceptions among CWS tend to be narrower thanamong CWNS, and if CWS perceive themselves as less capable speakers relative to theirfluent peers, what implications do such perceptions hold for the development of their self-efficacy as communicators? Also, given the relationship between children’s ability concep-tions and their motivational patterns, we can ask the related question: Are there connectionsbetween communication ability conceptions of CWS and their motivation to speak openly?By extension, is there a relationship between communication ability conceptions of CWSand their communication attitude?

Positive self-appraisals by CWNS to the question,what kind of talker are you, are con-sistent with reports in educational psychology literature where children’s self-perceptionsof competence across multiple domains are reported to be positive during early elementaryschool years (seeStipek & Mac Iver, 1989, for review). In sharp contrast, 11 of 23 CWSin the current sample provided guarded responses to the question,what kind of talker areyou, and many qualified their responses with references to their stuttering experiences. Thisoutcome marks a departure from reports of positive self-appraisals among early elementarychildren and begs the following question: For such CWS, do their misgivings in assigning“good talker” labels to themselves herald the development of negative attitudes toward theirown communication? Further, is there a relationship between their communication abilityconceptions, their communication attitudes, and their recovery from stuttering?

Finally, the current study further illustrates the potential of the qualitative paradigm inexpanding the scope of stuttering research.Quesal (1989), who provided a commentary on


the state of stuttering research, suggested that psychosocial aspects of stuttering have oftenbeen ignored by investigators because of the proliferation of quantitative methodologies inshaping the experimental bias among investigators and inherent difficulties in quantifyingemotions. Qualitative approaches to data collection and analysis, which are well suited forthe examination of psychosocial phenomena, are, therefore, quintessential for broadeningthe agenda of stuttering research.

As demonstrated in the current study, interviews can be most valuable in accessing chil-dren’s perceptions, experiences, and other inner world phenomena. That said, it is widelynoted that one pitfall of qualitative research emanates from using the researcher as the pri-mary research instrument. This criticism relates to the possibility that various forms of biascan be introduced into the methodology when humans are used as primary agents for col-lecting and analyzing data. Such bias relates to how the investigators’ position (also termed,positionality), including gender, age, race, experience, interaction style, and personal viewsand perspectives, affects their relationship with respondents and influences objectivity inthe data collection and analysis (seeHammell, 2000). Others have countered that the con-cern with bias in qualitative research is misplaced (Carpenter & Hammell, 2000) given that“various positionalities are seen as resources that are used by researchers to understandtheir own interpretations and behavior in research” (Carpenter & Hammell, 2000, p. 113).Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inadvertent effects of investigators’ bias in the currentoutcomes. We would like also to acknowledge a potential source of response bias in theoutcomes. It is worth pondering whether the order in which questions were presented to par-ticipants impacted the current outcomes to any extent and whether varying the presentationorder might have yielded additional thematic categories. We encourage other researchers touse multiple safeguards to limit potential sources and effects of bias in their investigations(seeLincoln & Guba, 1985, for discussion).

Other possible limitations of this study pertain to the number of participants and, possibly,the volume of data used in the analysis. Given that interviews have the potential to yield vastquantities of verbal data, the corpus of discrete responses featured in this study may appearlimited; however, it is possible that the volume of data featured here typifies the amount ofdata obtained from other age-matched children during comparable structured interviews onother topics.

Bar (1969), who used a qualitative methodology to study client-therapist roles and inter-actions in stuttering treatment, noted the following aspect of his analyses: “The value of theanalyses in this study is not in giving final answers, but in suggesting variables and meansfor therapeutic and experimental manipulation of interaction in therapy” (p. 126). EchoingBar, we recognize the exploratory character of the current study and preliminary natureof outcomes; however, we hope that the current outcomes will be re-examined with largerand diverse samples and that the proposed topics will be investigated through innovativemethodologies in efforts to inform treatment directions in stuttering.

Acknowledgement

We thank our participants for their time, patience, and insights. Thanks also to Drs.Kenneth Burk, Yvette Hyter, and Marlene Schommer-Aikins for their guidance in thisstudy and Melissa Kahn for editorial support of the manuscript.


Appendix A. Interview transcript

Participant (P): John Doe (name changed to preserve anonymity); age 7:2 (years:months);Grade: first; Group: CWS.

Interviewer (I): Primary investigator

1 I: Okay, John, I am going to ask you some questions about talking. There are no right or2 wrong answers. I just want to know what you think. Tell me, how does a good talker3 talk?4 P: I think they talk pretty good.5 I: Tell me what about their talking tells you they’re good talkers.6 P: When they don’t stutter, kinda go “mm, mm, mm,” like, when they’re trying to speak,7 they don’t push their tongue that hard on their teeth.8 I: Can you tell me more about stuttering?9 P: Kinda like going “l-l-l-l-look there is a lion,” and “ye-ye-ye-you on the street corner,

10 do you want to play catch?” [long pause] They, like, push their tongue really hard on11 their mouth because when you do, you go “mm-mm” until you finally push it and the rest12 comes out.13 I: So what would talking without stuttering sound like?14 P: Taking an easy breath, like when you catch yourself, you’re supposed to go (inhales15 deeply). Then you’re supposed to talk when the air is coming out, like (exhales slightly)16 “Hello, my name is John.”17 I: What kind of talking is that?18 P: Good talking.19 I: Okay. Tell me what else about their talking tells you they’re good talkers.20 P: They just don’t talk very fancy, they like, don’t brag, and they tell the truth and not21 lies. That’s all.22 I: So, you said that good talkers don’t brag, they tell the truth and not lies, they don’t23 stutter, like, put their tongue on the mouth, and they talk with easy breath. Right?24 P: Yeah.25 I: What else about their talking tells you they’re good talkers?26 P: Not that I can think of.27 I: Do you know somebody who’s a good talker?28 P: Yeah.29 I: Who?30 P: Everybody else in my class except me. Everybody in my class doesn’t stutter. Only I31 do.32 I: Okay. Tell me what else about their talking tells you they’re good talkers.33 P: They don’t tell lies, tell the truth. They just talk really good.34 I: What do they do when talking that tells you they’re talking good?35 P: They just take a nice, easy breath, ‘cause their mom taught them how to, and they’re36 used to taking a breath now.37 I: What else?38 P: Not that I can think of.39 I: Okay. I started by asking you how a good talker talks. Now tell me, how does a bad40 talker talk?41 P: They tell lies, they stutter. They like, push their tongue hard on their teeth. And that’s42 what I said on the good talker, but on the opposite. The only thing that I do – I do nottell43 lies, I do not do the other thing I said.44 I: What other thing?45 P: I just don’t tell lies. That’s the only thing I do not do, but I do everything else.46 I: Bragging? Was that the other thing you said?47 P: Yeah. I don’t do bragging either.


48 I: So, you said that a bad talker is one who tells lies, brags, they stutter, like they push49 their tongue hard on their teeth. What else about their talking tells you they’re bad50 talkers?51 P: That’s all I can think of.52 I: Do you know somebody who’s a bad talker?53 P: Yeah.54 I: Who?55 P: Sometimes my teacher kinda stutters. One time I caught her, she’s like “n-n-now class,56 its time to do a math sheet.” That’s the only time I caught her. But she might have57 stuttered more. But that’s the only time I caught her.58 I: So, you think she’s a bad talker.59 P: That’s the only teacher I know that’s a bad talker.60 I: Does she do anything else that tells you she’s a bad talker?61 P: No.62 I: Okay. Now tell me, what kind of talker are you?63 P: Mostly bad.64 I: Tell me why.65 P: Because I push my tongue on my teeth, and I stutter. I don’t brag or tell lies.66 I: But you still think you’re mostly a bad talker, even though you don’t brag or tell lies?67 P: Yeah. I’m kinda both.68 I: Both?69 P: Both good and bad talker.70 I: What do you mean?71 P: When I, like, don’t stutter, don’t push my tongue. I just like, for the sentence I just72 said. That was a good talker sentence.73 I: What about when you’re a bad talker?74 P: I stutter, push my tongue on my mouth. I ramble.75 I: You ramble?76 P: Yeah.77 I: Tell me what that is.78 P: I just want to hear myself talk.79 I: So, that’s rambling, huh?80 P: Yeah.81 I: Can you talk like that to show me?82 P: My dad said in the car when we were, like, driving. I was talking to hear myself talk83 and he was, like, “stop rambling, son, or I won’t concentrate and we’ll have a wreck.”84 Then I, like, kept up doing it and this guy pulled up, and this is our car (gestures) and this85 is their car (gestures), we’re going, and they just barely missed us. They honked so that86 they sped up. I just automatically stopped and he sped up. So we didn’t have a wreck.87 I: Okay, so you said the time when you’re a bad talker is when you stutter, you push your88 tongue to your mouth, and you ramble. What else?89 P: Mostly I just talk good, but sometimes I stutter and push my tongue on the back of the90 mouth. So, that’s why I came to fix that.91 I: Thank you for talking to me today.92 P: Okay.

CONTINUING EDUCATION

Communicative ability conceptions among children who stutter and their fluent peers: Aqualitative exploration


QUESTIONS

1. In qualitative analysis, a verbal data unit that is complete in itself and interpreted withreference to the focus of inquiry is called a:a. thematic categoryb. discrete responsec. generic responsed. metalinguistic category

2. Units of meaning were compared and contrasted to identify:a. thematic categoriesb. discrete responsesc. generic responsesd. metalinguistic categories

3. Participants in the CWS (Children Who Stutter) group relied more on which type ofcriteria in describing others’ communication behaviors:a. pragmatically basedb. phonologically basedc. content basedd. form-based

4. Within pragmatically based responses, references to what type of behaviors dominatedthe responses of both groups:a. qualifiersb. ambiguousc. politenessd. stuttering

5. In response to the question,what kind of talker are you, children who did not stutterprovided more of the following responses in comparison to their dysfluent peers:a. qualifiedb. categoricalc. ambiguousd. discrete

References

Ambrose, N. G., & Yairi, E. (1994). The development of awareness of stuttering in preschool children.Journal ofFluency Disorders, 19, 229–245.

Anderson, T. K., & Felsenfeld, S. (2003). A thematic analysis of late recovery from stuttering.American Journalof Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 243–253.

Bajaj, A. (1997).Analysis ofmetalinguistic behaviors of childrenwho stutter: Kindergarten through second grade.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wichita State University.

Bajaj, A., Hodson, B. W., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Performance on phonological and grammatical aware-ness metalinguistic tasks by children who stutter and their fluent peers.Journal of Fluency Disorders, 29(1),63–77.

Bar, A. (1969). Analyses of roles, stuttering and interaction processes during interviews with stutterers.Journalof Communication Disorders, 2, 126–140.


Benenson, I., & Dweck, C. S. (1986). The development of trait explanations and self-evaluations in the academicand social domains.Child Development, 57, 1179–1189.

Blodgett, E., & Cooper, E. (1988). Talking about it and doing it: Metalinguistic capacity and prosodic control inthree to seven year olds.Journal of Fluency Disorders, 13, 283–290.

Bloodstein, O. (1960). The development of Stuttering: I. Changes in Nine Basic Features.Journal of Speech andHearing Disorders, 25(3), 219–237.

Boberg, J. M., & Boberg, E. (1990). The other side of the block: The stutterer’s spouse.Journal of FluencyDisorders, 15(6), 61–75.

Brutten, G. J., & Dunham, S. (1989). The Communication Attitude Test: A normative study of grade schoolchildren.Journal of Fluency Disorders, 14, 371–377.

Butler, R. (1990). The effects of mastery and competitive conditions on self-assessment at different ages.ChildDevelopment, 61, 201–210.

Carpenter, C., & Hammell, K. (2000). Evaluating qualitative research. In K. W. Hammell, C. Carpenter, & I.Dyck (Eds.),Using qualitative research: A practical introduction for occupational and physical therapists(pp. 107–119). London: Churchill Livingstone.

Conture, E. G. (1991). Young stutterers’ speech production: A critical review. In H. F. M. Peters, W. Hulstijn, &C. W. Starkweather (Eds.),Speech motor control and stuttering. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Corcoran, J. A., & Stewart, M. (1995). Therapeutic experiences of people who stutter.Journal of Speech-LanguagePathology and Audiology, 19, 89–96.

Corcoran, J. A., & Stewart, M. (1998). Stories of stuttering: A qualitative analysis of interview narratives.Journalof Fluency Disorders, 23, 247–264.

Cream, A., Onslow, M., Packman, A., & Llewellyn, G. (2003). Protection from harm: The experience of adultsafter therapy with prolonged speech.International Journal of Language& Communication Disorders, 38(4),379–395.

Crichton-Smith, I. (2002). Communicating in the real world: Accounts from people who stammer.Journal ofFluency Disorders, 27, 333–352.

Cullinan, W. L., & Springer, M. (1980). Voice initiation and termination times in stuttering and nonstutteringchildren.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 23, 344–360.

Damico, J. S., & Simmons-Mackie, N. N. (2003). Qualitative research and speech–language pathology: A tutorialfor the clinical realm.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 131–143.

De Nil, L. F., & Brutten, G. J. (1990). Speech-associated attitudes: Stuttering, voice disordered, articulationdisordered, and normal speaking children.Journal of Fluency Disorders, 15, 127–134.

De Nil, L. F., & Brutten, G. J. (1991). Speech-associated attitudes of stuttering and nonstuttering children.Journalof Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 60–66.

Dweck, C. (2002). The development of ability conceptions. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.),Development ofachievement motivation(pp. 57–88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ezrati-Vinacour, R., Platzky, R., & Yairi, E. (2001). The young child’s awareness of stuttering-like disfluency.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 368–380.

Gabel, R. M., Colcord, R. D., & Petrosino, L. (2001). A study of the self-talk of adults who do and do not stutter.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 835–842.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Gorin, L. (1980). Stuttering in Lima, Peru: A qualitative case study of current concepts, theories, and treatment

facilities.Journal of Communication Disorders, 13, 263–276.Hammell, K. (2000). Representation and accountability in qualitative research. In K. W. Hammell, C. Carpenter,

& I. Dyck (Eds.),Using qualitative research: A practical introduction for occupational and physical therapists(pp. 59–71). London: Churchill Livingstone.

Johnson, W. (1942). A study of the onset and early development of stuttering.Journal of Speech Disorders, 7,251–257.

Johnson, W. and Associates (1959).The onset of stuttering. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Kathard, H. (2001). Sharing stories: Life history narratives in stuttering research.International Journal of Languageand Communication Disorders, 36, 52–57.

Kemper, R. L., & Vernooy, A. R. (1993). Metalinguistic awareness in first graders: A qualitative perspective.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 41–57.


Leahy, M. M. (2004). Therapy talk: Analyzing therapeutic discourse.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services inSchools, 35, 70–81.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994).Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide.London:

The Falmer Press.McKnight, R., & Cullinan, W. L. (1987). Subgroups of stuttering children: Speech and voice reaction times,

segmental durations, and naming latencies.Journal of Fluency Disorders, 12, 217–233.Miller, P. H. (2002).Theories of developmental psychology(4th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.Patton, M. Q. (1990).Qualitative evaluation and research methods(2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Patton, M. Q., & Westby, C. (1992). Ethnography and research: A qualitative view.Topics in Language Disorders,12, 1–14.

Quesal, R. W. (1989). Stuttering research: Have we forgotten the stutterer?Journal of Fluency Disorders, 14,153–164.

Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1991).Assessment. Princeton, NJ: Houghton Mifflin.Simmons-Mackie, N. N., & Damico, J. S. (2003). Contributions of qualitative research to the knowledge base of

normal communication.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 144–154.Smits-Bandstra, S. M., & Yovetich, W. S. (2003). Treatment effectiveness for school age children who stutter.Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 27, 125–133.

Stipek, D. J. (1984). Young children’s performance expectations: Logical analysis or wishful thinking? In J.Nicholls (Ed.),The development of achievement motivation(pp. 33–56). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Stipek, D. J., & Hoffman, J. (1980). Development of children’s performance-related judgments.Child Develop-ment, 51, 912–914.

Stipek, D., & Mac Iver, D. (1989). Developmental change in children’s assessment of intellectual competence.Child Development, 60, 521–538.

Susca, M., & Healey, E. C. (2002). Listener perspectives along a fluency-disfluency continuum: A phenomeno-logical analysis.Journal of Fluency Disorders, 27, 135–161.

Tetnowski, J. A., & Damico, J. S. (2001). A demonstration of the advantages of qualitative methodologies instuttering research.Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26, 17–42.

Tetnowski, J. A., & Franklin, T. C. (2003). Qualitative research: Implications for description and assessment.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 155–164.

Ulliana, L., & Ingham, R. (1984). Behavioral and nonbehavioral variables in the measurement of stutterers’communication attitudes.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 83–93.

Van Riper, C. (1971).The nature of stuttering(2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Vanryckeghem, M., & Brutten, G. J. (1996). The relationship between communication attitude and fluency failure

of stuttering and nonstuttering children.Journal of Fluency Disorders, 21, 109–118.Vanryckeghem, M., Hylebos, C., Brutten, G. J., & Peleman, M. (2001). The relationship between communication

attitude and emotion of children who stutter.Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26, 1–15.Watson, J. B. (1988). A comparison of stutterers’ and nonstutterers’ affective, cognitive, and behavioral self-reports.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 377–385.

Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Metacognition and learning disabilities. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. McKinnon, & T.G. Waller (Eds.),Metacognition, cognition, and human performance. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Wong, B. Y. L. (1988). How do the effects of metacognitive research impact on the learning disabled individual?Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 10, 189–195.

Amit Bajaj is an assistant professor at Emerson College, Boston, where he teaches courses in fluency disorders.His research interests in fluency disorders include examining the relationships between stuttering and language,stuttering identification, and application of qualitative methodologies in stuttering research.

Barbara Hodson is a professor and the doctoral program coordinator at Wichita State University, Kansas. Hermajor research interests pertain to evaluating and enhancing phonological skills of highly unintelligible children.

Carol Westby is a Senior Research Associate in the Center for Family and Community Partnerships at theUniversity of New Mexico in Albuquerque. Her research interests include ethnographic interviewing, qualitativeresearch, cultural diversity, autism spectrum, and all aspects of child language.

Documents

Communicative ability conceptions among children who stutter and their fluent peers: A qualitative exploration