MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W327359832

The Prevalence of Speech Disorders among University Students in Jordan.

2014· article· en· W327359832 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCollege student journal · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueStuttering Research and Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyStutteringFluencyCommunication disorderDevelopmental psychologyLanguage disorderCognitionMathematics educationPsychiatry
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Problem: There are no available studies on the prevalence, and distribution of speech disorders among Arabic speaking undergraduate students in Jordan. Method: A convenience sample of 400 undergraduate students at the University of Jordan was screened for speech disorders. Two spontaneous speech samples and an oral reading of a passage were collected for this purpose. The students who have speech disorders were also asked questions related to situational factors, such as awareness of the disorder, and the need for speech therapy. Results: The prevalence of overall speech disorders in the studied sample was 7.5%. Voice disorders were the most common (4%), followed by articulation disorders (3%), and (0.5%) for fluency disorders. Conclusion: The results of this study would be very helpful in increasing public awareness and counseling regarding speech disorders among patients and/or families, and consequently seeking early identification and intervention. Key words: prevalence, speech disorders, voice, stuttering, articulation, screening ********** Communication is vital for individuals. Human communication goes beyond basic functions used by animals. It is important for higher levels of function, such as thinking, working, and social interaction. Without good speech and language skills, it is very difficult to convey clear messages and learn new skills. Human relations and interactions are based and geared by communication. In other words, it is difficult to live in the society without the communication thread among people. If one would like to ask about the importance of communication in our daily life, individuals with communication disorders will be the best to answer such a question. Speech disorders which are part of communication disorders include voice, articulation, and fluency disorders (ASHA, 2013b). People with communication disorders have all aspects of their life affected, especially in the present century which is characterized by revolution in communication technology. Cell phones, internet communication, and computers became crucial in work and social life. Individuals who presented with articulation disorders may have poor literacy skills such as, spelling and reading compared to those who did not present with articulation disorders (Lewis & Freebrain, 1992; Lewis et al., 2007). They also face negative attitude from others (Bebout & Arthur, 1992). Clinical experience of the authors of this paper showed that many individuals with speech disorders (e.g., stuttering) face problems in continuing their education and retaining their jobs. Also, individuals who present with voice disorders are physically and socially affected (Roy, Merrill, Thibeault, Gray & Smith, 2004b; Thomas, Koojima, Donder, Cremer, & de Jong, 2007; Malki & Mesallam, 2012). Some of them retire early because of their voice problems (Hunter & Titze, 2010). With regard to articulation disorders, it is reported that students who present with articulation disorders face negative attitude from peers (Hall, 1991). People who stutter also face problems in life and career (Schlagheck, Gabel, & Hughes, 2009; Lake, Blanchet, Radloff, & Klonsky, 2009; Klein & Hood, 2004). Some patients stated that their stuttering affected the way they choose their occupation (Crichton-Smith, 2002). Several studies have investigated the prevalence of speech disorders around the world (Canadian Association of Speech- Language Pathologists and Audiologists (CASLPA), 2000; Craig, Hancock, Tran, Craig, & Peters, 2002; Roy et al., 2004a; Munier & Kinsella, 2007; Van Borsel, Rentergem, & Verhaeghe, 2007; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), 2008; Cantor Cutiva, Vogel, & Burdorf, 2013). The Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists (CASLPA) stated that 10% of the Canadians present with communication (speech or language) or hearing disorders (Canadian Association of Speech- Language Pathologists and Audiologists, CASLPA, 2000). …

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.

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)0,001
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 enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,289

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,323
Écart entre enseignants0,311 · 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