The Prevalence of Speech Disorders among University Students in Jordan.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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). …
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".