MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W327359832

The Prevalence of Speech Disorders among University Students in Jordan.

2014· article· en· W327359832 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege student journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStuttering Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyStutteringFluencyCommunication disorderDevelopmental psychologyLanguage disorderCognitionMathematics educationPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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). …

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.311 · 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