MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562241814

Study of the Communication Attitude of Slovenian Children Who Do and Do Not Stutter

2014· article· en· W1562241814 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mateja Gačnik, Martine Vanryckeghem

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStuttering Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStutteringPsychologyNormativeCommunication disorderTest (biology)Developmental psychologyAudiologyLanguage disorderMedicineCognitionPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data of investigations with the Communication Attitude Test (CAT) have shown this standardized test to be an internally reliable and valid instrument for differentiating children who stutter (CWS) from those who do not (CWNS). The present study’s aim was to obtain preliminary normative and comparative data of the communication attitude of fluent and stuttering grade-school children using a Slovenian version of the CAT (CAT-SLO). In addition, the effect of stuttering severity and age on the CAT scores were investigated. Preliminary data on item and discriminant analysis are presented. The CAT-SLO was administered to 136 CWNS and 58 CWS. The Stuttering Severity Instrument (SSI) was used to determine stuttering severity. The CWS scored statistically significantly higher on the CAT-SLO than the CWNS. Stuttering severity did not seem to play a role in the extent of the negative speech-associated attitude. Communication attitude was differentially affected by age among the CWS, but not for the CWNS. Four items did not discriminate significantly between the two participant groups. Overall, the CAT-SLO has shown to have a high discriminant power. This test is a useful tool in the assessment of grade-school CWS as the first Slovenian calibrated instrument for the evaluation of communication attitude.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicStuttering Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207