Welcome to CDC Stacks | The Function of Repeating: The Relation Between Word class and Repetition Type in Developmental Stuttering - 40154 | CDC Public Access
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
Help
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
The Function of Repeating: The Relation Between Word class and Repetition Type in Developmental Stuttering
Filetype[PDF - 361.41 KB]


Details:
  • Pubmed ID:
    26205205
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC4724559
  • Funding:
    P30 HD015052/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
    P30HD15052/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
    DC006477-01A2/DC/NIDCD NIH HHS/United States
    T32-CH18921/CH/OID CDC HHS/United States
    5R01DC000523-18/DC/NIDCD NIH HHS/United States
    R56 DC000523/DC/NIDCD NIH HHS/United States
    UL1 TR000445-06/TR/NCATS NIH HHS/United States
    1 UL1 RR024975-01/RR/NCRR NIH HHS/United States
    R01 DC000523/DC/NIDCD NIH HHS/United States
    R01 DC006477/DC/NIDCD NIH HHS/United States
    UL1 RR024975/RR/NCRR NIH HHS/United States
  • Document Type:
  • Collection(s):
  • Description:
    Purpose

    The purpose of the present study was to investigate repetitions associated with monosyllabic words in preschool-age children who stutter (CWS). Specifically, it was hypothesized that repetition type should vary according to word class in preschool-age CWS and children who do not stutter (CWNS).

    Method

    Thirteen preschool-age CWS and 15 preschool-age CWNS produced age-appropriate narratives, which were transcribed and coded for part-word repetitions (PWR) and whole-word repetitions (WWR) occurring on monosyllabic words. Each repetition type location was also coded for word class (i.e., function vs. content).

    Results

    Results indicated that although CWS and CWNS were significantly more likely to produce PWR on content words, this tendency did not differ between the two talker groups. Further, CWS and CWNS did not differ in their tendencies to produce PWR versus WWR overall, but the tendency to produce repetitions on function words was significantly greater for CWS versus CWNS.

    Conclusion

    Findings are taken to suggest that repetitions of monosyllabic words in young children are not easily explained from the perspective of phonological errors, but may instead be considered from an incremental planning of speech perspective.