MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2121820739 · doi:10.1044/cds20.1.15

Bilingual Myth-Busters Series When Young Children who Stutter are Also Bilingual: Some Thoughts About Assessment and Treatment <sup>1</sup>

2013· article· en· W2121820739 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rosalee C. Shenker

Notice bibliographique

RevuePerspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueStuttering Research and Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFluencyStutteringPsychologyMulticulturalismMythologyIntervention (counseling)LinguisticsDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryHistoryPedagogyClassicsMathematics education

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

No AccessPerspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) PopulationsBilingual Myth-Busters Series1 Apr 2013Bilingual Myth-Busters Series When Young Children who Stutter are Also Bilingual: Some Thoughts About Assessment and Treatment1 Rosalee C. Shenker Rosalee C. Shenker Montreal Fluency Centre Montreal, Quebec, Canada Google Scholar https://doi.org/10.1044/cds20.1.15 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In The author was invited to write this article as part of ASHA Special Interest Group 14's Perspectives of Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Populations Bilingual Myth-Busters Series. The increase in children raised as bilingual has increased throughout North America and worldwide. In spite of this, procedures and protocols for assessment and treatment of bilingual children with speech and language concerns have not kept the same pace. When clinicians treat children who are bilingual and also stutter, they have few guidelines available. This article summarizes some of the information related to stuttering in bilingual young children with an emphasis on assessment and treatment. The author pays special attention to multicultural issues in bilingual children who stutter. References BakhtiarM., & PackmanA. (2009). Intervention with the Lidcombe Program for a bilingual school-age child who stutters in Iran.Folia Phoniatrica et Logaoedics, 61, 300–304. Google Scholar De HouwerA. (2011). The speech of fluent child bilinguals.In P. Howell & J. Van Borsal (Eds.), Multilingual aspects of fluency disorders(pp. 3–23). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar DruceT., DebneyS., & ByrtT. (1997). Evaluation of an intensive treatment program for stuttering in young children.Journal of Fluency Disorders, 22, 169–186. Google Scholar EinarsdottirJ., & InghamR. J. (2009). Does language influence the accuracy of judgments of stuttering in children?.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 766–779. Google Scholar FindlayK., & ShenkerR. C. (2011, May). Lidcombe Program treatment time: Applying benchmarks to linguistically diverse children.Paper presented at Annual Convention of Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Montreal, Quebec. Google Scholar FindlayK., ShenkerR. C., & MatthewsS. (2008, November). Treatment time with the Lidcombe Program for bilingual children.Poster presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Chicago, IL. Google Scholar GeneseeF. (2008, September). Early dual language learning.Zero to Three,17–23. Google Scholar GutmannV., & ShenkerR. C. (2006, November). Achieving fluency in bilingual children with the Lidcombe Program.Presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Miami, FL. Google Scholar HarrisonE., KingstonM., & ShenkerR. C. (2011). Case studies in evidence-based management of stuttering preschoolers.Manuscript submitted for publication. Google Scholar HumphreyB., Al NatourY., & AmaryrehM. (2001, May). Does treatment of stuttering in language 1 generalize to language 2: A case study.Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Florida Speech and Hearing Association (FLASHA), Marco Island, FL. Google Scholar KindlerA. (2001). Survey of the states' limited English proficiency students and available educational programs and services 2000-2001 summary report.Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs. Google Scholar OnslowM., PackmanA., & HarrisonE. (2003). The Lidcombe Program of early stuttering intervention: A clinician's guide. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Google Scholar RobertsP. M., & ShenkerR. C. (2007). Assessment and treatment of stuttering in bilingual speakers.In E. Conture & R. F. Curlee (Eds.), Stuttering and related disorders of fluency(3rd ed., pp. 183–209). New York, NY: Thieme Medical. Google Scholar RousseauI., PackmanA., & OnslowM. (2005, June). A trial of the Lidcombe Program with school age stuttering children.Paper presented at the Speech Pathology National Conference, Canberra, Australia. Google Scholar ShenkerR. C. (2004). Bilingualism in early stuttering: Empirical issues and clinical implications.In A. K. Bothe (Ed.), Evidence-based treatment of stuttering: Empirical bases and clinical applications(pp. 81–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar ShenkerR. C., ConteA., GingrasA., CourceyA., & PolomenoL. (1998). The impact of bilingualism on developing fluency in a preschool child.In E. C. Healey & H. F. M. Peters (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second World Congress on Fluency Disorders, San Francisco, August 18–22(pp. 195–199). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Nijmegan University Press. Google Scholar Van BorsalJ. (2011). Review of research on the relationship between bilingualism and stuttering.In P. Howell & J. Van Borsal (Eds.), Multilingual aspects of fluency disorders(pp. 247–270). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Waheed-KahnN. (1998). Fluency therapy with multilingual clients.In E. C. Healey & H. F. M. Peters (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second World Congress on Fluency Disorders, San Francisco, August 18(pp. 22(pp. 195–199). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Nijmegen University Press. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByPerspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups4:5 (1062-1073)31 Oct 2019Fluency Strategies of Spanish–English Bilinguals Who Stutter: A Thematic AnalysisAngela M. Medina, Tiziana Pereira, Diana Muñoz, Grisel Palacios and Vanessa PerezPerspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Populations20:1 (5-14)1 Apr 2013Bilingual Myth-Busters Series Language Confusion in Bilingual ChildrenMark Guiberson Volume 20Issue 1April 2013Pages: 15-23 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Apr 1, 2013 Metrics Downloaded 439 times Topicsasha-topicsasha-article-typesasha-sigsCopyright & Permissions© 2013 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF DownloadLoading ...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,078
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,833

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,047
Tête enseignante GPT0,376
Écart entre enseignants0,329 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePerspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse PopulationsMême sujetStuttering Research and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207