Abstract

Objective: In order to evaluate the emotional dimension of stuttering and to provide appropriate intervention and to referral when necessary, to develop “Scale for Determining Avoidance and Struggle Behaviors in Fluent Speech Disorders” and to determine the validity and reliability of this scale. Method: In order to develop the scale, compositions describing the avoidance and struggle behaviors of adults who stutter were requested. Expressions about these emotions in the compositions were identified and arranged as positive and / or negative scale items, and these items were examined by a linguist. The validity of the 30-item, 4-point Likert-type scale was determined and the scale was applied as a pilot study to 20 participants speaking in normal fluency (5 female, 15 male) and 20 adults who stutter participants (5 female, 15 male). Results: In the reliability analysis of the scale; Cronbach's alpha values ​​were found to be 0.969 for avoidance and struggle behavior sub-dimension, and 0.848 for acceptance behavior sub-dimension. For the validity analysis of the scale, Bartlett's test was found to be significant for both parameters (p = 0.000), Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin results were found to be 0.741 for avoidance and struggle behavior sub-dimension and 0.703 for acceptance behavior sub-dimension. The variance explanation ratio of the scale is over 0.50. Conclusion: As a result of the study we developed the scale; It was determined that the sample was multidimensional in the universe where the sample was selected and valid and reliable answers were obtained.

AKICI KONUŞMA BOZUKLUKLARINDA KAÇINMA ve MÜCADALE DAVRANIŞLARINI BELİRLEME ÖLÇEĞİ (AKB-KMÖ): PİLOT ÇALIŞMA

Abstract

Amaç: Kekemeliği olan yetişkinleri duygusal boyutta değerlendirmek, bu bireylere uygun müdahaleyi ve gerektiğinde yönlendirmeleri yapabilmek amacıyla akıcı konuşma bozukluğu mücadele ve kaçınma davranışı ölçeğini geliştirmek ve ölçeğin geçerlilik, güvenirliliğini belirlemektir. Yöntem: Ölçeğin geliştirilmesi için kekemeliği olan yetişkinlerden kaçınma ve mücadele davranışlarını anlatan kompozisyonlar istenmiş, kompozisyonlarda bu duygularla ilgili ifadeler tespit edilerek olumlu / olumsuz ölçek maddesi olarak düzenlendikten sonra bu maddeler dilbilim uzmanı tarafından incelenmiştir. 30 maddeli, 4’ lü likert tipi ölçeğin kapsam geçerliliği belirlenmiş ve hazırlanan ölçek pilot çalışma olarak 20 akıcı konuşan (5 kadın, 15 erkek), 20 kekemeliği olan katılımcıya (5 kadın, 15 erkek), onayları alınarak uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Oluşturulan ölçeğin güvenilirlik analizinde; Cronbach Alpha değerleri kaçınma ve mücadele davranışı alt boyutu için 0,969 olarak bulunurken, kabullenme davranışı alt boyutu için bu değer 0,848 olarak belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğin geçerlilik analizleri için yapılan faktör analizi sonuçlarında Bartlett's testi her iki parametre için de anlamlı çıkmış olup (p=0,000), Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin sonuçları kaçınma ve mücadele davranışı alt boyutu için 0.741, kabullenme davranışı alt boyutu için 0.703 olarak bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin varyans açıklanma oranı 0.50'nin üzerindedir. Sonuç: Çalışmamız sonucunda geliştirdiğimiz ölçeğin; örneklemin seçildiği evrende çok boyutluluk özelliği taşıdığı, geçerli ve güvenilir cevaplar elde edildiği belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Akıcı konuşma bozukluğu
• kekemelik
• kaçınma davranışı

References

1. Anderson, LW. 1988. Attitudes and their measurement. Edaucational Research, Methodology and Measurement: An International Handbook. Ed. Keeves, JP, 1st ed. pp. 421-426. Oxford.
2. Andrews, G., Cutler, J. 1974. Stuttering therapy: The relation between changes in symptom level and attitudes. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 34: 312–319.
3. Beilby, JM., Byrnes, ML., Yaruss, JS. 2012. Acceptance and commitment therapy for adults who stutter: Psychosocial adjustment and speech fluency. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 37: 289–299.
4. Bloodstein, O., Ratner, NB. 2008. A Handbook on Stuttering. 6th ed. pp. 25-57, Clifton Park, NY: Thomson/Delmar Learning.
5. Bobrick, B. 2011. Knotted tongues: Stuttering in history and the quest for a cure.1st ed. pp. 89-101 New York: Simon & Schuster.
6. Bothe, AK et all. 2006. Stuttering treatment research 1970–2005:. Systematic review incorporating trial quality assessment of behavioral, cognitive, and related approaches. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 15: 321–341.
7. Corcoran, J., Stewart, M. 1998. Stories of stuttering: A qualitative analysis of interview narratives. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 23: 247–264.
8. Craig, A., Blumgart, E., Tran, Y. 2009. The impact of stuttering on the quality of life in adults who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 34: 61–71.

9. DeNil, LF., Brutten, GJ. 1991. Speech-associated attitudes of stuttering and nonstuttering children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 34: 60–66.
10. De Vellis, RF.2003. Guidelines in scala development. Scale Development Theory and Application. 2nd ed. pp. 60-96. California: Sage Publition.
11. Doğan M vd. 2016. Kekeme çocukların yaşam kalitesi bulguları. KBB Uygulamaları. 4(2):64-69.
12. Erdem M vd. 2011. Genç erişkin kekemelik vakalarında anksiyete düzeyi ile başa çıkma tutumlarının ilişkisi. New Symposium Journal; 49(2): 77-82.
13. Erickson, RL. 1969. Assessing communication attitudes among stutterers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 12: 711–724.
14. Franic, DM., Bothe, AK. 2008. Psychometric evaluation of condition-specific instruments used to assess health-related quality of life, attitudes, and related constructs in stuttering. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 17(1), 60–80.
15. Harrison, JC. 2008. Redefining Stuttering. 12 th ed. pp.18. NY: National Stuttering Edition.
16. Ingham, JC. 2003. Evidence-based treatment of stuttering: Definition and application. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 28(3), 197–206.
17. Klompas, M., Ross, E. 2004. Life experiences of people who stutter, and the perceived impact of stuttering on quality of life: personal accounts of South African individuals. J Fluency Disord. 29: 275-305.
18. Koedott, C., Bouwmans, C., Franken, MC.,Stolk, E. 2011. Quality of life in adults who stutter. Journal of Communication Disorders. 44 :429-443.
19. Manning, WH. 2010. The nature of fluent and nonfluent speech: the onset of stuttering. Clinical Decision Making in Fluency Disorders. 3rd ed. pp. 45-67. Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning.
20. Neilson, M., Andrews, G. 1993. Intensive fluency training of chronic stutterers. Stuttering and Related Disorders of Fluency. Ed. Curlee, R. 1st ed. pp. 139-165. New York: Thieme.
21. Prins, D., Ingham, R. 2009. Evidence-based treatment and stuttering—historical perspective. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. 52: 254–263.
22. Riper, VC. 1973. Treatment of Stuttering. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
23. Ryan, B. 1979. Stuttering therapy in a framework of operant conditioning and programmed learning. Controversies About Stuttering Therapy. Ed. Gregory, H. pp-129-170. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
24. Yaruss, JS., et al. 2002. Speech treatment and support group experiences of people who participate in the National Stuttering Association. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 27; 115–135.
25. Yaruss, JS., Quesal, RW. 2006. Overall assessment of the speaker’s experience of stuttering (OASES): Documenting multiple outcomes in stuttering treatment. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 31(2), 90–115.
26. Yaruss, JS. 2010. Assesing quality of life in stuttering treatment outcomes research. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 35: 190-202.
27. Watson, JB. 1988. A comparison of stutterers’ and nonstutterers’ affective, cognitive, and behavioral self-reports. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 31: 377–385.
28. Williams, DE., Kent, LR. 1958. Listener evaluations of speech interruptions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 1: 124–131.
29. World Health Organization. 1993. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to The Consequences of Disease (with forward). Geneva: World Health Organization.