MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rosalee C. Shenker

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStuttering Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluencyStutteringPsychologyMulticulturalismMythologyIntervention (counseling)LinguisticsDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryHistoryPedagogyClassicsMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from 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 ...

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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse PopulationsSame topicStuttering Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207