The Peer Attitudes Toward Children who Stutter (PATCS) scale: an evaluation of validity, reliability and the negativity of attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persistent calls for school-based education about stuttering necessitate a better understanding of peer attitudes toward children who stutter and a means to measure outcomes of such educational interventions. Langevin and Hagler in 2004 developed the Peer Attitudes Toward Children who Stutter scale (PATCS) to address these needs and gave preliminary evidence of reliability and construct validity. AIMS: To examine further the psychometric properties of PATCS and to examine the negativity of attitudes. METHODS & PROCEDURES: PATCS was administered to 760 Canadian children in grades 3-6. Measures included reliability, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), a known groups analysis, convergent validity with the Pro-Victim Scale of Rigby and Slee, and the negativity of attitudes. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: PATCS appears to tap a second-order general attitude factor and three first-order factors representing the constructs of Positive Social Distance (PSD), Social Pressure (SP), and Verbal Interaction (VI). In the known groups analysis, participants who had contact with someone who stutters had higher scores (more positive attitudes) than those who had not, and girls had higher scores than boys. PATCS correlated moderately (0.43, p<0.01) with the Pro-Victim scale. Finally, one-fifth (21.7%) of participants had scores that were somewhat to very negative. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Results provide evidence of the validity and reliability of PATCS and confirm the need for school-based education about stuttering. The PSD and SP factors suggest that education include discussions about (1) similarities and differences among children who do and do not stutter in order to increase acceptance, and (2) making personal choices and handling peer pressure in thinking about children who stutter. The VI factor suggests that open discussion about stuttering may alleviate frustration experienced by listeners and provide the opportunity to give strategies for responding appropriately. Results also suggest that education involve contact with a person who stutters.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".