Stuttering and time perspective

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content STU TTER IN G AND TIM E P E R S P E C T IV E by R o b e rt C rane Cole, J r . A D is s e rta tio n P r e s e n te d to the FA C U L TY OF TH E GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY O F SO UTH ERN CALIFORNIA In P a r tia l F u lfillm e n t of the R e q u ire m e n ts fo r the D egree DOCTOR OF PHILO SO PHY (C om m unicative D is o rd e r s ) S ep tem b er 1972 INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While th e most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, th e quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you com plete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black mark, it is an indication th at the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being p h o to g rap h ed th e photographer followed a definite m ethod in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to th e understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A Xerox Education Company C O L E , J r., Robert Crane, 1929- ST U T T E R IN G A N D T IM E PERSPECTIVE. U niversity o f Southern C alifornia, Ph.D., 1972 Speech Pathology University Microfilms. A X ER O X Com pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan © 1973 ROBERT CRANE COLE, JR. ALL R IG H T S R E S E R V E D THIS DISSERTATION H A S B E E N M IC R O F IL M E D E X A C T L Y A S REC EIV ED . UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ER N CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL U NIVERSITY PARK LOS ANG ELES. CALIFO RNIA S 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by Robert Crane C ole, J r. I s * under the direction of h Dissertation C om mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Gradu ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y f '7n<v±o Dean ^ September 1972 D ate ....................................... PLEASE NOTE: Some p ag e s may have in d is tin c t p r i n t . Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A X erox Education Company TA BLE OF CONTENTS ;LIST OF T A B L E S ....................................................................................................... iv C h ap ter Page I. I N T R O D U C T I O N ................................................................................... 1 I S ta te m e n t of the P r o b le m Definitions of T e r m s Im p o rta n c e of the Study II. REV IEW OF L I T E R A T U R E ........................................................... 6 ! S tuttering and T e m p o ra lity S tuttering and Topic V ariability T im e P r e s s u r e R e a c tio n Time T im e Duration E s tim a te s S tuttering and P ro p o sitio n ality P e rso n a lity and T e m p o ra lity III. METHODS AND P R O C E D U R E S .................................................... 16 I ! S ubjects < M a te ria ls i Judges ! E x p e rim e n ta l P r o c e d u r e s ! S ta tistica l T r e a tm e n t of the D ata IV. R E SU LT S AND DISCUSSION........................................................... 22 E x p e rie n c ed Difficulty R e a c tio n T im e, S tuttering, and W ord Output F a c to r Analysis V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IM P L IC A T IO N S. . . 29 Chapte r S u m m a ry Conclusions i Im plications i I jR E F E R E N C E S ................................................ I A PPEND IXES | A. Screening Interview . . B. In stru ctio n s to Subjects j C. In stru ctio n s to Judges • I D. S ubjects' R e a c tio n s. . . [ E. R otated F a c to r M a trix F. F a c to r M a t r i x ................... LIST O F TA BLES ^Table i 1. Topic Sequence Conditions ................................................... i 2. E x p e rie n c e d Difficulty a s R eported by Subjects . . . i 3. C o rre la tio n of Speech T a s k s and B e h a v io ra l M e a s u r e s ......................................................................................... 4. F a c to r I — Stuttering as R elated to Age and R eaction T i m e ................................................................................................... 5. F a c to r II — W ord Output as R elated to Stuttering . . 6. F a c to r III — R eaction T im e as R e la te d to Age and O r d e r ............................................................................... 7. F a c to r IV — R e p o rte d T a s k Difficulty as Related [ to O r d e r ............................................................................................ C H A P T E R I INTRODUCTION Wendell Johnson (1956) defined stuttering as an " an ticip a to ry , a p p re h e n siv e , hypertonic avoidance r e a c tio n ." The an tic ip a to ry asp ect of Jo h n so n 's c onstruct h a s rec e n tly b e e n investigated by C u rle e and P e r k in s (1968), who found that "fre q u en c ies of expectancy and s t u t t e r ing significantly d e c r e a s e d following punishm ent of signaled e x p e c ta n c ie s to s tu tte r ." In his d e s c rip tio n of stuttering, Johnson (1956, 1967) also used the word " d r e a d ," denoting a negative feeling about the future He lim ited his m eaning, h o w ev er, to stuttering b eh av io r. A s im ila r d e fe a tist attitude has b e e n e la b o rate d by F re u n d (1953), who d e s c r i b e s stuttering a s an "expectancy n e u r o s i s ." The following quotation e la b o r a t e s F r e u n d 's view of a c h a r a c te r is t ic pattern. The expectancy n e u r o s e s r e p r e s e n t neurotic d is tu r b a n c e s of lea rn ed but autom atized sk ills, and also of simple m o to r o r vegetative functions. They a re all based on actual tra u m a tic (" p rim a ry " ) e x p e rie n c e s of h e lp le s s n e s s and failu re in the p e r fo rm a n c e of these a c tiv itie s . The activ ities th e re fo re b e c o m e d rea d e d and the anticipation of th e ir r e c u r re n c e le a d s , via inhibition, e tc ., to a re p e titio n of the failure, thus esta b lish in g a vicious spiral. Some indications e x ist that people who stutter m ay ex p e rien c e p e s s im is m about the future which tra n s c e n d s stuttering behavior p e r sej I Sheehan (1953) review ed projective studies of stuttering and concluded that "One d im en sio n on which studies have shown a g re e m e n t is level of a sp ira tio n ." He felt that "the lower level of a s p ira tio n of s tu t t e r e r s is probably a m an ife sta tio n of their d e fe n siv e n e ss and efforts to a v e rt d anger of f a ilu re . The low ered a s p ira tio n s of the s tu tte re r a p p ear to stem f ro m the e g o -p ro te c tiv e level of conflict, but m ay also be i n t e r p reted a s a re a c tio n secondary to the handicap." W illia m s (1957) rep o rted that s o m e s tu t t e r e r s re g a r d t h e m selves as the v ic tim s of n o n -o b se rv a b le e n titie s, such as being h e lp le ss or being under the co n tro l of past events. Although not specifying a p a rtic u la r anxiety, Santostefano (1960)| theorized "that by adulthood a s tu tte re r develops an enduring d is p o s i- j | tion c h a r a c te r iz e d by g e n e ra l anxiety and hostility which i n te r f e r e s i j with his p e rs o n a l ad ju stm en t and efficiency of functioning." 1 A ccording to the studies ju st review ed, the individual who j s tu tte rs s e e m s to w o rry about his future o r feel trap p ed by his p a s t. j i He m a y d re a d blocking in the next m o m e n t o r day o r u n d e re s tim a te hisj ability to p e r f o r m a n o n -sp e e c h task in the next hour. The s tu tte re r m ay lack the se re n ity and the fre e d o m f ro m v a rio u s te m p o ra litie s of one who liv e s m o r e wholly in the p r e s e n t m o m e n t. Statem ent of the P r o b le m The p u rp o s e s of the study a re stated in the following questions: i i 1. Will people who stutter re p o rt that they ex p e rien c e m o re i I difficulty while talking about to m o rro w a s c o m p a re d with talking about y e s te rd a y o r today? Speech Task (an independent va ria b le ), is identified in the following way: What I did y e ste rd a y ; What I am doing today, including rig h t now; What I m ight do or expect to do to m o rro w . The wording of the fu tu re oriented sp e ec h task w a r r a n ts some disc u ssio n . The topic "What I m ight do or ex p ect to do to m o rro w " w as chosen so as not to im ply e ith e r a positive o r negative valence, e .g . , j hope o r d e s p a ir . The intention was to have a topic th at was basically j i n e u tra l so th at r e s p o n s e s would reflec t individuals' m oods. i 2. Will re a c tio n tim e (dependent v a ria b le ) be significantly | ! c o r r e la te d with speech topic ? j I | 3. Will frequency of stuttering (dependent v a ria b le ) be ! I I significantly c o rr e la te d with s p e e c h topic ? 4. Will w ord output (dependent v ariab le) be significantly c o r r e la te d with speech topic? The following r e s e a r c h question is designed to provide possible hypotheses fo r future r e s e a r c h . 5. W hat constructual d im e n s io n s could be derived fro m the d ata to provide a c la rific a tio n of the in te r -r e la tio n s h ip s am ong the following v a r i a b le s : r e a c tio n s tim e, word o u t put, rep o rted difficulty, age, o rd e r of speech task, and stuttering. Age in th is in sta n c e, should be regarded a s an independent v a ria b le . T his in vestigation was g e n e ra te d fro m c lin ic a l experience with a d o le s c e n t s tu tte r e r s who often re p o r te d that they anticipated so m e failure c o n c e rn in g their re s p e c tiv e to m o r ro w s . The prevalent negative thinking was not only about sp e ec h situations, but other activities as well, su c h as school t e s t s or athletic e n d e a v o rs . Definitions of T e r m s T he f i r s t independent v a ria b le , speech ta s k , is identified as "What I did y e ste rd a y , w hat I a m doing today including right now, and what I m ig h t do o r expect to do t o m o r r o w ." j l The second independent v a ria b le , age is identified in the follow - i ing w ay: C hildren, ages 6 through 12; te e n a g e rs , 13 through 19; and j I adults, 20 and beyond. j ! The dependent v a ria b le , re a c tio n tim e, is identified as the j ; I latency period betw een the m o m e n t a cue card indicating a topic i s j placed in front of a subject, and the m o m e n t a su b je c t nods his head, indicating he intends to s ta rt v e rb a liz in g . (The intention aspect is ; I included for a c c u ra c y of m e a s u r e m e n t as som e individuals stu tter su b v o c ally .) The dependent v a ria b le , stuttering, is identified as frequency of rep e titio n s or prolo n g atio n s of sound or syllable. The dependent v a ria b le , w ord output, is identified as the total n u m b er of w o rd s spoken about each of the th re e ex p e rim e n tal topics for a period of th re e m in u te s per topic. (Johnson, D arley, and S p rie s te rs b a c h , 1963, provide sta n d a rd s used in de te rm in in g how w ords should be counted.) Im portance of the Study "A b a sic fe a tu re of stu tte rin g behavior is that the stu tter is under tim e p r e s s u r e to a g r e a t extent," according to Sheehan (1958). Few r e s e a r c h e r s , how ever, have e xplored tim e d im en sio n s a s asp ec t of stuttering beh av io r. T raditional m eth o d s of therapy have included "the s e c u rin g of thorough c a se h is to r y ," (Gifford, 1956). C u r r e n t therapy p r a c tic e s focus on h e r e - and n o w -b e h a v io rs such as p ro posed by Sham es, et a l . (1969). If it is indicated th at s tu t t e r e r s ex p erien ce a ge n e ra liz e d d re a d of the future, it would seem logical to s t r e s s this com ponent in therapy p r o g ra m s . C H A P T E R II REVIEW OF L IT E R A T U R E Stuttering and T e m p o ra lity A pilot study w a s conducted (Cole, 1969). w h e re it w as found that 23 out of 43 su b je c ts (ages 12 through 18) r e p o rte d that they e x p e rienced m o re difficulty in talking about to m o rro w in c o n tra s t to talking about today o r y e s te r d a y . This yielded a significant chi square (P < 0.0 1 ). T his pilot study was lim ited to a d o le sc en t subjects, and it m ay be fu rth e r illum inating to investigate a g r e a te r age ran g e . A s it is d e s ire d to include c h ild ren in the sa m p le , it is im p o rta n t to c o n sid e r th e ir conceptual level and possible ability to p e rf o r m a specific speech task . C r o m e r (1968) h a s re p o rte d re le v a n t findings in this a r e a fo l lowing his study of the developm ent of te m p o ra l re fe re n c e in the l a n guage of c h ild ren . He noted th a t at the ages f r o m four y e a r s to four y e a r s , six m o n th s, th e r e e m e r g e s a cognitive ability that helps the child to em ploy h is newly acquired linguistic d e v ic e s for such specific m o d es of te m p o r a l r e f e r e n c e s o r view points; e . g . , a view point of the fu tu re . The child m ay also e x p r e s s a m ood of the hypothetical, i . e . , a possibility that an e v en t may o r may not o c c u r. C r o m e r found, 6 how ever, that it is only a fte r age five that a child's con cep tu al ability cle a rly includes a te m p o r a l field that extends beyond the field of d i r e c t perception. He u sed P ia g e t's t e r m "d ecen terin g " to d e s c r ib e an ability to stand outside an event. D uring the fifth y e a r, then, a child is n o r m ally able to t r e a t tim e independently f ro m action. D ifferent age lev e ls w e re chosen for the study on the b asis th at tim e pe rsp e c tiv e is partly a function of age. A ccording to M ay (1958), the outlook on the future and the past involves the length of tim e that c o m e s under o ur full a w a r e n e s s . De G rief (1958) s u m m a r i z e s this viewpoint as follows: "At five y e a r s of age the child n o rm a lly has a concept of y e s te rd a y , today, and to m o rro w ; at eight y e a r s the child counts in weeks, each of w hich m ay se em in term in ab le; at fifteen, the time unit is the m onth; at about twenty, the y e a r." Stuttering and Topic V ariability An a ssu m p tio n involved in the c u r r e n t study is that te m p o ra lly oriented topics w ill have d iffe re n t stim ulus values in t e r m s of the r e actions of subjects who stu tte r. It would be expected that a s tu tte r e r would r e a c t in som e o v e rt a n d /o r c o v e rt way during spontaneous speech! with p r e - s e le c te d topics. Support for this hypothesis has b e e n provided! by M oore, S oderberg, and P o w ell (1952), and M oore (1954). T hese i in v estig a to rs d ire c te d attention to how stuttering v a r i e s w ith ideational ! I o r em otional context. In the f i r s t study, a group of 16 a d o le sc en t i s tu tte r e rs w e re asked to speak on the to p ic s of p a re n ts , m is d e e d s, fea rs, a s s o c i a te s , good tim e s, and future hopes. M oore, et a l . , found that s tu t t e r e r s had m o re difficulty in talking about their p a re n ts in c o n tr a s t to talking about good tim e s . In the second study, M oore tested a group of 17 s t u t t e r e r s which included a d o le s c e n ts and adults, and again found a re la tio n s h ip betw een stuttering and speech topic. M oore (1954) concluded that "the r e s u lts have c e r ta in im p lic a tio n s for m a n aging s t u t t e r e r s . F i r s t , c e rta in topics a r e b e tte r than o th e r s for establishing e a sy speech situations. T h e s e to p ics are good tim e s , work, and h o p e s. O ther a re a s , such a s fam ily, p a re n ts, and speech, probably need m o r e re -o rg a n iz a tio n and re -e v a lu a tio n by the s tu tte r e r s ." Som ew hat tangential a re the findings r e p o rte d by B e rn h a rt (1954), who u se d the Blacky P ic tu r e s P r o je c tiv e T e st. This te s t is designed for ch ild ren , and a child is typically a sk ed to tell a story about the situ a tio n s w hich are shown in a s e rie s of c a rto o n s of a dog family. A p ic tu re that trig g e re d m ore stu tterin g than o th e rs depicted the Oedipus situation. T his t e s t follows psychoanalytic theory which a s su m e s th a t c h ild re n d e s ir e sex re la tio n s with the p a re n t of the opposite sex. I Kline (1959) found significant d iffe re n c e s in the am ount of stuttering e lic ite d by v a rio u s w ord g ro u p s. T h is w as a w ord a s s o c ia - | i tion study u sing w o rd s re la tin g to speech, se c u rity seeking, o b stacle j 9 surm ounting, and sex, w o rd s that w e r e selected by the s tu tte r e r s a s " p ro b le m " w ords, and w o rd s that w e r e assu m e d to be n e u tra l. V arious w o rd s groups, then, w ere not found to be "equipotential." Additional support th at "em otionally loaded" m a t e r i a l will evoke m o r e stuttering has been provided by B ardick and Sheehan (1956). T hey found in c r e a s e d stuttering in the readings of p a s s a g e s with d e r o g a to ry s ta te m e n ts about s tu tte r e r s taken f ro m psychoanalytic lite ra tu re . F o r exam ple, " S tu tte re rs a r e notoriously im m a tu r e , n a rc is s is tic , w eak individuals. . . . " Tim e P r e s s u r e Sheehan (1958) had hypothesized that "time p r e s s u r e " is a basic v a ria b le in stuttering beh av io r. Stunden (1965) investigated this p h e nom enon and found that s tu t t e r e r s ' " p e rs o n a l tim e p r e s s u r e set" w as s e lf-im p o se d . Stunden proceeded f r o m the h ypothesis that under tim e p r e s s u r e , c e rta in adjective stim uli elicit high frequency c o n tra s t r e s p o n s e s , e . g . , hot - cold, and th a t under no tim e p r e s s u r e condi tions these sa m e a d jectiv es usually evoke other f o r m s of re s p o n s e , e . g . , hot - stove. He p re se n te d his word a sso c ia tin g list c om posed of 16 te s t adjectives of the c o n tra s t type to 18 adult s tu t t e r e r s , 18 matched; c o n tro ls, and 18 highly anxious n o r m a l s p e a k e rs . T h e re w e re two | e x p e rim e n ta l conditions. "T h e f i r s t (time p r e s s u r e ) re q u ire d each i s u b ject to respond to the stim u lu s w o rd . In the second condition (no i ........ ... . . . J tim e p r e s s u r e ) , the subjects w e re in stru c te d that speed of re sp o n se w a s not im p o rta n t." Stunden h ypothesized that "under the tim e p r e s s u re condition the s tu tte r e r s and c o n tro ls would all p re s e n t a la rg e n u m b e r of co n tra stin g adjectives r e s p o n s e s and that the differences am ong g roups would not be significant. T his hy p o th esis was c o n f ir m e d ." Stunden also hypothesized that "in the no tim e p r e s s u r e c o n dition, the s tu t t e r e r s would continue to u s e c o n tra stin g adjectives, w h e r e a s the controls would not. T his h ypothesis w as also c o n firm e d ." R eaction T im e S e v e ra l in v estig a to rs have c o m p a re d s t u t t e r e r s ' and n o rm a l s p e a k e r s ' reaction tim e . F ont (1955) te s te d nine college age s tu t t e r e r s and 49 nonstuttering college students with the K ent-R osanoff f r e e - a sso c ia tio n te st. No significant d iffe re n c e s w e re found between the re a c tio n tim e of s tu t t e r e r s and n o n s tu t t e r e r s to the w ord asso ciatio n te s t. She concluded th a t the "application of the a sso c ia tio n te s t by this m ethod re v e a le d no s h a rp d istin ctio n betw een the n o n s tu tte r e rs and the s t u t t e r e r s in v estig a ted ." This finding d iffe rs f r o m the re p o r ts of B orghi (1955) and Kline (1959) that s t u t t e r e r s a s c o m p a re d to c o n tro ls w e r e significantly slow er in responding to stim u lu s w o rd s . A d a m s and1 D ietze (1965) have helped to c la rify this is s u e in an e x p e rim e n t w h e re 1 | they hypothesized th at " S tu tte r e rs a r e m o r e d istu rb ed than fluent j s p e a k e r s by stim uli connoting affect." T h e ir su b jects w e re 30 s tu tte r e r s , a g e s 18 to 45, and 30 nonstuttering co n tro ls m atc h ed for age and education. One hundred eighteen stim ulus w ords w ere chosen on the b a s is of their p re s u m e d pertin en ce to the following affects: joy, guilt, d e p re ssio n , f e a r , and a g g re s s io n . An additional 35 w o rd s con- sie re d to be affectively n e u tra l w e re em ployed. Fifty n o n s tu tte r e r s w e re asked to group the stim ulus w o rd s into the six c a te g o rie s , and the associating w ord list w a s c o m p rise d of those w o rd s on which 90 p e rc e n t a g re e m e n t by judges w a s re a c h e d . A fter the p resen tatio n of the w ord asso c ia tio n te s t and the m e a s u r e m e n t of reaction tim e betw een s tim u lus p re se n ta tio n and the initiation of w ritten re s p o n s e , s t u t t e r e r s also ca te g o riz e d w ord lis ts for affective sta te s. The indications w e re that both groups w e re slow er to r e a c t to w o rd s p re s u m e d to connote affect. The s tu tte r e r s w ere significantly slow er than co n tro ls on all w o rd s . The stuttering group had significantly g r e a te r rea c tio n tim e s than non s tu t t e r e r s to guilt, a g g re s s io n , and d e p re ssio n w o rd s. T im e D uration E s tim a te s The ability to e s tim a te e x p e rien c e d time is c le a rly im p a ire d in s tu t t e r e r s . Van R ip e r and M ilisen (1939) noted th at s tu tte r e r s typically o v e re s tim a te d the tim e that elap sed betw een the o n se t of a block and the I subsequent te rm in a tio n of these blocks. | j Ringel and M inifie (1966) investigated the effects of c e r ta in pro-j I ductive and receptive co m m u n icativ e activities on su b je c ts' estimations! - - 12 of tim e duratio n . They c o m p a red the r e s p o n s e s of 11 m ild s tu tte r e rs , 10 m o d e ra te to s e v ere s tu t t e r e r s , and 11 n o r m a l s p e a k e rs . All 32 subjects w ere p re s e n te d with a 10 second stim ulus tone so that a tim e r e f e re n c e m ight be e sta b lish e d . Subjects w ere in stru c te d to signal with a control button e s tim a te s of a 10 second period while sim u lta n e ously engaged in the following ta s k s : silence, o r a l reading, silent reading, listening, and spontaneous speech. The findings w ere that " S tu tte re rs , r e g a r d le s s of their se v erity , judged less a c c u ra te ly d u r ing co m m u n icativ e activities than n o n s tu tte re rs ; the diffe re n c es reached a level of significance only in the c a se of the m o r e severly dysfluent group." An im p o rta n t in te rp re ta tio n is that s tu t t e r e r s e x p e rience a d isto rtio n of tim e duration beyond speech blocks, a difficulty which " a p p e a rs to pervade the e n tire com m unicative activity." Stuttering and P ropositionality E isen so n and Horowitz (1945), in a c la s s ic study, found that stuttering in c re a s e d as propositionality o r m ea n in g fu ln e ss in c re a s e d . Subjects read m a t e r i a l s which ranged f r o m nonsense w o rd s to pro se p a ra g ra p h s, i . e . , f ro m a R oosevelt le tte r . Bloodstein (1950) re p o rte d a case who "had hardly any difficulty in reading a page b a c k w a rd ." E ise n so n (1963) has fu rth e r c la rifie d "propositional language" w ith the im plication that m an is a tim e-b in d in g c la s s of life. He states: ! . . . the ability to com bine sim ple linguistic units (words) into m o r e com plex units (sentences) is the ability to use language p ro p o sitio n a lly . It im p lie s an ability to u se language to re fe r to situations not im m ed ia te ly p re se n t, to talk about what w as, what m ay be, what m ight have been, and what should be. It p e rm its rec o lle c tio n and projection. Through the use of propositional language, m an can y e a rn for w hat is not and striv e to bring it about. P e rso n a lity and T e m p o ra lity Some of the s tu t t e r e r s ' p e rso n a lity difficulties m ay be found in the a re a of m ood, w hether acute o r chronic. R ic h a rd s o n (1944) studied 30 adult s tu t t e r e r s and 30 n o n stu t t e r e r s m a tc h e d fo r age, sex, education, and intelligence. One of her t e s t in s tru m e n ts w a s the Guilford Inventory of F a c t o r s (STDCR). The Guilford te s t indicated that the s tu t t e r e r s w e re som ew hat m o re d e p re s s e d . C h r is te n s e n (1952) used the R o rs c h a c h te s t in his study of 30 child s tu t t e r e r s and 30 siblings. He found th at the s tu t t e r e r s projected significantly m o r e s a d n e s s . Two stu d ies involving the M M PI indicated s im ila r findings c on cerning s t u t t e r e r s ' m oods. D ahlstron and C ra v e n (1952) studied 80 m a le , 20 fem a le s tu t t e r e r s , and 100 college age c o n tro ls. The s tu t t e r e r s w e r e found to be a bit m o r e " d is c o u ra g e d ." W alnut (1954) c o m p a re d 20 m a le and 18 fem a le s tu tte r e r s with 25 crip p led subjects, 26 individuals with cleft palate, and 52 p re s u m a b ly n o r m a l subjects. All groups w e r e high school age. The s tu t t e r e r s showed a higher d e g re e of d e p re s s io n . - --------------------------------------------------------------- ' ' _ ” 14 Some indications e x is t that s tu t t e r e r s m ay ex p erien ce p e s s i m i s m about the future w hich t r a n s c e n d s stuttering behavior p e r se. Sheehan (1958) review ed p ro je c tiv e stu d ies of stuttering and concluded that "one d im e n sio n on w hich studies have shown a g re e m e n t is level of a s p ir a tio n ." He felt that "the low er level of a sp ira tio n of s t u t t e r e r s is probably a m anifestation of th e ir d efe n siv en e ss and efforts to a v e r t d a n g e r of fa ilu re . The lo w ered a s p ira tio n s of the s tu tte re r a p p e a r to s te m f r o m the e g o -p ro te c tiv e level of conflict but m ay also be i n t e r p re te d as a rea c tio n se co n d a ry to the handicap." A ccording to May (1958), the future is "open for the n o r m a l individual, and although e v ery th in g is u n c e rtain except the c e rtitu d e of d e a th w hose date itse lf is u n c e rtain , a larg e field is open to re a s o n a b le expectation and planning; in o th er w o rd s, a m o r e o r l e s s p r e c is e t e n tative schedule is constantly p ro je c te d into the future. This m a y be deeply d isto rte d in c e rta in m e n ta l conditions . . . for the d e p r e s s e d , the future is in a c c e ss ib le and 'b lo c k e d ,1 which is one of the w o r s t sufferings of these p a tie n ts." T his is a s im ila r point to S tra u s s (1947), who has also w ritte n about the tim e o rien tatio n in d e p r e s s iv e s. He says that they a r e a w are of change but try to fo rc e it b a c k . They see the p r e s e n t as t im e l e s s , unchanging, and h o p e le ss. S tra u s s r e l a te s this condition to an o v e r w helm ing feeling of guilt- j In s u m m a ry , s t u t t e r e r s a p p e ar to m a n ife s t d iffe re n c es in the a r e a of te m p o ra lity . They e x p e rie n c e "tim e p r e s s u r e , " show slow er "re a c tio n tim e " to em otionally connotative w o rd s , and d is to r t "tim e d u ra tio n ." S tu tte re rs m ay be slightly " d e p r e s s e d " individuals and probably have a negative set about th e ir p e rs o n a l fu tu re s. A c arefu l review of the l ite r a tu r e indicated that r e s e a r c h had not been conducted sim ila r to this p r e s e n t study concerning "tim e p e rs p e c tiv e ." It is c le a r, how ever, that the behavior called stu tterin g h as v a rio u s s itu ational a s so c ia tio n s . C H A P T E R III M ETHODS AND PR O CEDURES Subjects T his study utilized 21 volunteer m ale su b je c ts. Included w e re equal n u m b e rs of children (ages 6 through 12), te e n a g e rs (13 through 19), and adults (20 and beyond). E a c h subject w as in terv iew ed by a faculty m e m b e r of a college speech pathology train in g p r o g r a m (see Appendix A). A s d e te rm in e d by that interview , each subject w as r e quired to m e e t the following c r i t e r ia : 1. The p r e s e n c e of stu tterin g behavior m u s t have been e s t a b lished. 2. E ach subject m u s t have attended c la s s e s in an a c cre d ite d school and n e v e r have been enrolled in Special Education c l a s s e s for m entally re ta rd e d students. In the case of ch ild ren , th is a n sw e r w as obtained f r o m a p a re n t or guardian. 3. E ach subject m u s t have d e m o n s tra te d , durin g the screenin, in terv iew , an ability to talk consistently about the sam e topic for th re e m in u te s. 16 E ach subject w as then told he would subsequently be asked to talk about the events of y e s te rd a y , today, and to m o rro w . All subjects who m e t the s c re e n in g c r i t e r ia a g re e d to p articipate in the e x p e rim e n t. The 21 subjects ranged in age fro m 7 to 45 y e a r s . M a te r ia ls An in te rv ie w room provided with two c h a irs and a table w as used with all su b jects. Cue c a r d s indicating the topics YESTERDAY, TODAY, and TOMORROW w e re m a d e up by folding 5" by 7" index c a r d s in half and printing the topics with a black felt pen. A W ollensak tape r e c o r d e r (Model T-1500), and a stop watch w e re used with all subjects. Typed p ro to co ls f ro m all r e c o r d in g s w e re p re p a re d by a clinic s e c r e ta r y . She w as in stru cte d to count w o rd s according to the i n s t r u c tions provided by Johnson, et a l . (1963), and to count ev ery w ord that w as said. C o n trac tio n s such as " I 'm " (subject, verb) w ere counted a s two w o rd s , w h e re a s co n tractio n s such as " c a n 't" w e re counted as one w ord. The in te rje c tio n "oh" w as counted a s a word; how ever, v o c a l ized p a u s e s w e re not (see A ppendix D). Ju d g e s T h re e students e n ro lled in a college Speech and H earing S cien ces P r o g r a m w e re tra in e d by the e x p e rim e n te r in judging m o m e n ts of stu tterin g . Judges liste n e d to one sentence at a tim e f r o m a , 18 train in g tape re c o rd in g of a s tu tte r e r v erb alizin g the e x p e rim e n tal topics. Each judge w a s supplied with a com plete protocol of all v e r balizations given on the audio tape. Judges w e re in stru cte d to m ake a pencil m a rk on any sound o r syllable w here they noted a repetition o r prolongation. Judges b e c a m e co n sisten t in noting m o m e n ts of s tu t t e r ing in approxim ately one hour. (Instructions to judges a re given in Appendix C . ) E x p e rim e n ta l P r o c e d u r e s Subjects w e re sy ste m atic a lly assigned to one of the conditions given in Table 1 in o r d e r to c o n tro l for adaptation to the e x p e rim e n ta l situation and to co n tro l for any possible effect which m ight be the c o n sequence of som e p a rtic u la r sequence of speech ta s k s . TA B L E 1 TO PIC SEQUENCE CONDITIONS Sequence T opics (1) 1, 2, 3 (2) 1, 3, 2 1 = What I did y e s te rd a y . l^\ 2 ^ 1 2 = What I am doing today including rig h t now. (4) 2, 1, 3 3 = What I m ight do or (5) 3, 1, 2 expect to do to m o rro w . (6) 3, 2, 1 i ■ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — ■ ■ ■ i . . ■ - 1 , All six conditions w ere exhausted for each age group. This accounted fo r the f ir s t 18 su bjects, i . e . , six c h ild ren , six te e n a g e rs , and six adults. The additional th re e subjects w e re ran d o m ly assig n ed one of the topic se q u en c e s by draw ing a nu m b ered piece of paper out of a box. T his re s u lte d in child No. 7 having sequence one, te e n a g e r No. 7 having condition five, and adult No. 7 having condition one. The d etails of the in stru c tio n s to subjects a re given in Appendix B and w e re m e m o r iz e d so as to p r e s e n t the d ire c tio n s to a ll subjects in the sam e m a n n e r . E a c h subject w as in stru c te d to talk continuously for th re e m in u tes about e a c h of the th re e tem p o rally d esig n ated topics. All subjects w e re additionally in stru c te d that they m ay think about each topic as long a s they like before they s ta r t talking. D ire c tio n s w e re for e a ch subject to nod his head when he w a s ready, so th at the e x p e r i m e n te r could " s t a r t the tape r e c o r d e r . " It w as re a s o n e d th at an in d i vidual m ay pause indefinitely and that if the tape r e c o r d e r w a s on d u r ing th is tim e it could r e s u l t in the e x p e rim e n te r being out of tape when the individual w as rea d y to s ta r t talking. R eaction tim e to the n e a r e s t second w as noted by stopw atch for all topics (see Appendix D). The following s ta te m e n t w as m ad e im m e d ia te ly upon com pletion of all speaking ta s k s : "Now, tell m e when you e x p e rie n c e d the m o s t d iffi culty, when you w e re talking about y e s te rd a y , w hen you w e re talking | about today, o r when you w e re talking about to m o r ro w ." i Jud ges w e r e given typed p ro to co ls of each of the three top ics for each subject. They then listened to c o rre s p o n d in g tapes and noted, by pencil m a r k , m o m e n ts of stuttering. (The frequency count is given in Appendix D. ) Jud g m en ts w ere m ade on the f ir s t 20 and the next 100 w o rd s of spontaneous speech in th e ir study. A s som e s tu tte r e rs se em to have difficulty getting sta rte d no m a tte r how innocuous the topic, it w as decided to sta tistic a lly tre a t the frequency of stu tterin g on the f ir s t 120 w o rd s of each topic and on a m iddle 100 w o rd s. by the subjects following tape re c o rd in g s of all th re e topics. Subjects w e re re q u e s te d to state when they e x p e rie n c e d the m o s t difficulty, when talking about y e s te rd a y , today, o r to m o rro w . T hese data w ere s u b jected to a chi sq u are a n aly sis a s d e s c r ib e d by Siegel (1958). T his te s t ability that the p ro p o rtio n s could have o c c u r r e d by c h a n ce ? The data f ro m the dependent v a r ia b le s re a c tio n tim e, frequency of stu tterin g , and w ord output w e re then analyzed by m e a n s of a p ro d u c t-m o m e n t c o rre la tio n , using the fo rm u la : S tatistical T r e a tm e n t of the Data The f ir s t data fo r this study c o n sisted of th re e r e s p o n s e s given question, w hat is the p ro b - r N £xy - f x £ y 21 T his p ro ce d u re is d e s c r ib e d by F e r g u s o n (1966). F o r th is section of the a n a ly sis, each su b je c t's re c o rd w as bro k en into th re e p a rts c o rre s p o n d in g to the th re e speaking ta s k s , and e a ch p a rt w as e n te re d on s e p a ra te IBM data c a rd s . T he task level w a s indicated by a y e s -n o quantification, and the b e h a v io ra l m e a s u r e s w e re r e p r e s e n te d by th eir n u m e r ic a l v a lu e s (see Appendix D). C a rd one fo r e a c h subject c o n sisted of the following six m e a s u r e s : task one ( y e s t e r day) y es ( i . e . , 1); task two (today) no ( i . e . , 2); task 3 (tom orrow ) no ( i . e . , 2); rea c tio n tim e, ta sk one; stuttering, task one; and w ord o u t put, task one. In this way it w a s possible to c o m p a re task level with b e h a v io ral m e a s u r e s by a c o rr e la tio n a l p ro ce d u re with d e g re e s of fre e d o m equal to 62. A fac to r an a ly sis w a s em ployed to provide g r e a t e r specificity for the v a ria b le s being studied. C o rre la tio n a l data w e r e analyzed by the T hurstone C entroid M ethod; the fac to r s tru c tu re w a s then ro ta ted by the K a is e r - V e r im a x M ethod (K e rlin g er, 1964; Nunnally, 1967). F o r the factor a n a ly s is, the dependent v a ria b le , age, w as divided into the following le v e ls: C h ild ren , ages 6 th ro u g h 12; I T e e n a g e rs , ag e s 13 th ro u g h 19; Adults, ages 20 and beyond. ! C H A PTER IV R E SU LTS AND DISCUSSION E x p e rie n c ed Difficulty A s u m m a r y of the su b je c ts' r e s p o n s e s with r e s p e c t to e x p e r i enced difficulty, i . e . , talking about y e s te r d a y , today, or to m o rro w , is p re s e n te d in Table 2. Of the 21 su b je c ts, 15 re p o rte d that they e x p e rie n c e d the m o s t difficulty during the speaking ta s k "What I m ight do or expect to do to m o r ro w ." Two su b jects r e p o rte d that they e x p e rie n c ed the m o s t difficulty during the speaking ta sk "W hat I a m doing today including rig h t now ." F o u r su b jects r e p o r ts that they ex p e rien c e d the m o st difficulty during the speaking ta sk "What I did y e s te r d a y ." A chi sq u are te s t yielded a value of 14.00, D F = 2, p < .001. The h y pothesis th at s t u t t e r e r s w ill re p o r t that they ex p e rien c e m o r e difficulty w hile talking about to m o r ro w as c o m p a re d with today o r y e s te rd a y is th e r e fo r e supported. One subject, not included in the sa m p le , w as a s ix - y e a r old boy who w as r e p o rte d ly quite v e rb a l during the s c re e n in g interview . D uring the e x p e rim e n t, h o w ev er, he stated, "I ju s t c a n 't talk about t o m o r r o w .1 ' I I 22 23 TA BL E 2 E X PE R IE N C E D D IF F IC U L T Y AS R E P O R T E D BY SU B JE C T S Child Age M ost Difficult Topic Next L e a s t 1. 8 1 2 3 2. 10 3 2 1 3. 7 3 2 1 4. 10 1 3 2 5. 9 3 1 2 6. 7 3 2 1 7. 7 1 3 2 T e e n ag e r Age M ost Difficult Topic Next L e a s t 1. 16 3 2 1 2. 13 3 2 1 3. 19 3 2 1 4. 18 3 1 2 5. 17 3 2 1 6. 17 3 1 2 7. 19 3 2 1 Adult Age M ost Difficult Topic Next L e a s t 1. 20 3 2 1 2. 25 2 3 1 3. 25 3 2 1 4. 23 1 2 3 5. 45 3 1 2 6. 20 2 1 3 7. 20 3 1 2 1 = "W hat I did y e s te r d a y ." ! 2 = "What I a m doing today including right now." ; 3 = "W hat I m ight do or expect to do to m o rro w ." j ------- 24 Subjects' spontaneous c o m m e n ts following the ex p e rim e n tal task s w e re g e n e ra lly concerned with vague f e a r s of the unknown. One teenager stated, "I don't know w h a t's going to happen to m o rro w so I'm apprehensive about it." Another tee n a g e r stated, "I don't know what is going to happen. I will get in trouble to m o rro w ." R eaction T im e , Stuttering, and Word Output Although subjects re p o rte d a g r e a te r e x p e rien c e d difficulty with task 3 (tom orrow ), the r e s u lts did not d e m o n s tra te any relation betw een this re p o rte d difficulty and the behavioral m e a s u r e s used. (The c o r relation coefficients a re given in Table 3.) All c o rr e la tio n s betw een TA BLE 3 CO RR ELA TIO N OF S P E E C H TASKS AND BEHAVIORAL M EASURES Reaction Tim e Stuttering F requency Word Output (1) Y esterd a y (task) .013 .066 . 038 (2) Today (task) -. 165 - .0 5 5 -.011 (3) T o m o rro w (task) -. 151 - .0 1 0 -.0 2 7 (4) R eaction T im e .080 - .1 9 5 ; (5) Stuttering - . 5 3 0 * * (6) W ord Output I ------------------------1 ♦significant; p < .05 ♦♦significant; p < .01 task and the b eh av io ral m e a s u r e s , re a c tio n tim e, stuttering, and w ord i output, failed to achieve significance in all c a s e s (p > .05). The c o m putation fo r the dependent v a ria b le stu tterin g w as d e riv e d f ro m the f i r s t 120 w o rd s spoken on e a c h topic (M oore, 1954). An additional com putation using the frequency of stu tterin g of a m iddle 100 w o rd s indicated e sse n tia lly the sam e c o rr e la tio n s shown in Table 3. A s som e s tu t t e r e r s m a n ife s t difficulty initiating speech r e g a r d le s s of topic, the purpose of this fu rth e r a n a ly sis w a s to clarify a possible "getting s ta r te d " effect. A negative relatio n sh ip (r = -.530, p < .01) for a tw o-tailed te s t w as o b s e rv e d . The m in u s v alen ce in d ic a te s that a s frequency of stuttering in c re a s e d , w ord output d e c r e a s e d . (An r of 0.250 w as re q u ire d for the 0 .05 significance level and an r of 0.325 w as r e q u ire d for the 0.01 significance le v e l.) F a c to r A n aly sis A factor analysis w as em ployed to provide a c la rific a tio n of the in te r - r e la tio n s h ip s among the following v a ria b le s : re a c tio n tim e, worc( output, r e p o r te d difficulty, age, o r d e r of speech ta s k , and stuttering. | Appendix F gives the fac to r m a t r ix of the m o s t m eaningful d im e n sio n s i obtained. T h e re w e re four m a j o r c lu s t e r s am ong the v a ria b le s a s J shown in T a b le s 4, 5, 6 and 7. T his portion of the investigation is j p e rtin e n t to the fifth question posed in C hapter I w hich concerned the ! I identification of hypotheses for fu tu re r e s e a r c h . j T A B L E 4 FA C TO R I - STU TTER IN G AS R E L A T E D TO AGE AND REA C T IO N TIM E 0 00 stu tterin g on " y e s te rd a y " 00 stu tterin g on "today" .77 stu tterin g on " to m o rro w " -. 68 rea c tio n tim e on "today" . 57 te e n a g e r s -. 55 children T A B L E 5 FA C TO R II - WORD O U TPU T AS R E L A T E D TO STU TTERIN G • 97 w ord output on "today" .95 w ord output on " y e s te rd a y " . 93 w ord output on " to m o rro w " - . 5 6 stu tte rin g on "today" - .4 1 stu tterin g on " to m o rro w " --------------- - 27 TA BL E 6 F A C T O R III - REACTION TIME AS R E L A T E D TO AGE AND ORDER .83 re a c tio n tim e on " to m o rro w .73 rea c tio n tim e on " y e ste rd a y - . 5 9 adults . 54 "today" p rese n ted f ir s t .44 re a c tio n tim e on "today" T A B L E 7 F A C T O R IV - R E P O R T E D TASK D IFFIC U L T Y AS R E L A T E D TO ORDER - .8 1 re p o rte d difficulty, " y e s te rd a y " .6 5 " to m o rro w " p rese n ted f i r s t . 60 re p o rte d difficulty, "today" Table 4 d e m o n s tr a te s that stuttering w a s a rea so n a b ly stable phenom enon. If a s tu tte r e r stuttered when d is c u s s in g one topic, he w as likely to stu tte r on all topics. The positive end of the d i m e n sion m ay be c h a r a c te r iz e d a s follows: people who stu ttere d on all ta s k s w e re quick to initiate talking about today, tended to be teenagers,! and did not tend to be c h ild ren . (The m in u s valence p rec e d in g 0. 68 J - ' 28 m e a n s a sh o rt rea c tio n tim e, i . e . , subjects tended to initiate speech m o r e quickly on the today to p ic.) Table 5 m ay be c h a r a c te r iz e d by the sta te m e n t that people who talked m o r e fre e ly tended to stu tter le s s . A negative c o rr e la tio n betw een w ord output and stu tterin g h as also been r e p o rte d by Rousey (1958) in his e x p e rim e n t with spontaneous speech. T his is hardly a v e ry sta rtlin g finding as speaking with in te rm itte n t clonic and tonic blocks is an inefficient way of co m m u n icatin g , o r a s T r a v is h a s stated, "Stuttering is an overm odification of the outgoing b re a th s tr e a m . . T his finding d o e s, how ever, support Jo h n so n 's (1967) advice to the c la s s r o o m t e a c h e r . He stated: E n c o u rag e the child to talk m o r e . This m ay be the single m o s t im p o rta n t type of im p ro v e m e n t for a s tu tte r e r to achieve b e c au se his speaking tim e is his w orking tim e. P r a c tic a lly any speech im p ro v e m e n t he is going to a c c o m p lis h will have to be achieved while he is speaking and through the a c t of speaking. Table 6 d e m o n s tr a te s that adults tended to resp o n d m o r e quickly to all task s; i . e . , people who showed g r e a t e r rea c tio n tim e tended not to be adults. A lso, re a c tio n tim e w as g r e a t e r for all ta s k s when i "today" w a s the f ir s t ta s k p re s e n te d . Table 7 indicates that when " to m o rr o w " w as p re s e n te d f ir s t, " y e s te rd a y " tended to be re p o rte d a s le s s difficult and "today" tended to be r e p o rte d a s m o r e difficult. T his tre n d d oes not su p p o rt a notion ! that "getting s ta r te d " in a speech situation is e x p e rie n c e d a s being m o r e difficult than is continuing to talk. | CH APTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IM PLICATIONS S um m ary The P r o b le m The p u rp o se s of this study w ere to te s t the hypothesis that people who stu tter will re p o r t that they ex p e rien c e m o re difficulty while talking about to m o rro w as c o m p a red with talking about y e s te rd a y or today, and to a s c e r ta in possible c o rr e la tio n s between the tim e orien ted topics and o b se rv a b le b e h a v io rs . The r e s e a r c h questions gen e ra te d w e re : 1. Will people who stutter r e p o r t that they experience m o re difficulty while talking about anticipated events of to m o r ro w as c o m p a re d with talking about y e s te rd a y o r today? 2. Will re a c tio n tim e be significantly c o rre la te d with speech topic ? 3. Will frequency of stuttering be significantly c o r r e la te d with sp e ec h topic ? 29 4. Will w ord output be significantly c o rr e la te d with speech topic ? Method Tw enty-one subjects who m e t the specified c r i t e r i a for s e l e c tion w e re used in this e x p e rim e n t. T his included equal g roups of children, te e n a g e rs , and adults. They w ere asked to talk continuously for th ree m in u tes on th re e p r e - s e le c te d topics. The subjects w e re in stru c te d that they m a y s t a r t talking im m ediately following the p r e sentation of a cue c a rd indicating the topic, o r that they m ay think about each topic a s long as they like before they begin. The topic sequence conditions w e r e s y s te m a tic a lly v a rie d to c o n tro l for an o rd e r effect. The following s ta te m e n t was m ade im m ed ia te ly upon c o m p le tion of all speaking ta s k s : "Now, tell m e when you e x p e rie n c e d the m o s t difficulty, when you w e r e talking about y e s te rd a y , when you w ere talking about today, o r when you w e re talking about to m o r r o w ." R e action tim e s to each topic w e r e noted to the n e a r e s t second. A two out of th ree judges a g re e m e n t on m o m e n ts of stuttering w a s la te r obtained f ro m the tapes. A chi square te s t w as used to d e te rm in e su b je c ts' r e p o rte d topic difficulty, and p r o d u c t- m o m e n t c o rr e la tio n s w e re obtained b e tween each topic and the dependent v a ria b le s : rea c tio n tim e , frequency i of stuttering, and w ord output. " " “ “ ...................... " " 31 A fa c to r a n aly sis w a s fu rth e r em ployed to a s c e r ta in possible c o rr e la tio n a l tre n d s am ong the v a ria b le s of topic, age, rea c tio n tim e, frequency of stuttering, and w ord output. R e su lts E x p e rie n c e d D ifficulty.- - T h e chi sq u are te s t indicated a signifi cant d iffe re n c e (p < .001) to support the hypothesis that s tu tte r e r s will r e p o r t that they ex p e rien c e m o re difficulty talking about "What I m ight do o r expect to do to m o rro w " a s c o m p a re d to talking about today or ye s t e r d a y . R eactio n T im e , Stuttering, and W ord O utput.--N o significant d iffe re n c e s w e re found betw een topic, rea c tio n tim e, frequency of stuttering, and w ord output. A significant negative c o rre la tio n (r = 0. 530, p < . 01) w as found betw een frequency of stuttering and w ord output on all topics. C onclusions Individuals who stutter a p p e a r to be ap p re h e n siv e about their re s p e c tiv e fu tu re s . T heir c o v e rt e x p e rie n c e s while speaking, how ever, do not n e c e s s a r i ly p a ra lle l o v e rt b eh av io r. The r e s u lts of this in v e s ti gation indicate that they e x p e rien c e d m o re difficulty internally although I re a c tio n tim e , stuttering, and w ord output did not vary significantly as! related to topic. T re atin g attitudes, th e r e fo r e , m ay not affect stuttering beh av io r. Im plications Im plications o f the Findings It is hoped that the findings that have been re p o rte d will be helpful to those p e rs o n s who a re co n cern ed with the diagnosis and tre a tm e n t of individuals who s tu tte r. We need continually to a p p r e ciate that the s tu tte r e r m ay ex p erien ce m u ch m o r e difficulty internally than is shown in his e x te rn a l b e h a v io r. Indications e x ist for a need to provide the s tu tte r e r with sym ptom atic th era p y as well as possible focus on his a ttitu d e s. The c e n tr a l p ro b le m of this study co n cern ed the relative im p o rta n c e , fo r the therapeutic setting, of focusing on an individual's past, p r e s e n t, o r future. If a given s tu tte r e r r e p o r ts that an open- ended future o rie n te d topic is m o r e difficult to talk about as c o m p a red to a p a st o rie n ted topic, and w ants to explore this a re a , it m ight be m o re m eaningful in reducing possible a p p re h e n s iv e n e s s to have him d is c u s s a n d /o r w rite his future autobiography r a th e r than his past. Sim ilarly , if an individual who s tu tte rs r e p o r t s little difficulty while d isc u s s in g w hat he h as been ( e . g . , c a se h isto ry data), it m ay be m o re m eaningful for h im to d is c u s s and c la rify w hat he w ants to be. The m a jo r im plication of the fa c to ria l findings c o n c e rn s the fact that the m o re an individual s tu tte rs , the le s s he talk s. T his i n volves a Speech P a th o lo g is t's role a s a consultant. Specifically, the people in a s tu tte r e r's e n v iro n m e n t can be encouraged to re w a rd talking, p a rtic u la rly if he tends to b e c o m e disc o u ra g ed with speech a tte m p ts. Im plications for F u tu re R e s e a r c h This study, a s an investigation of time p e rsp e c tiv e , w as lim ited in a specific way. Subjects w e re re q u e ste d to talk about y e s te r d a y , today, and to m o rro w . A fu ture study concerning tem p o rality could include an attitude about speaking in the next m o m e n t as w ell as m o r e d ista n t h o riz o n s such a s next w eek, next m onth, next y e a r, etc. The developm ent of an o p t im is m - p e s s im is m scale is also indicated to clarify d e g re e s of positive and negative thinking. The finding that adult s tu t t e r e r s tended to respond m o r e quickly to all ta s k s is difficult to in te r p re t; how ever, it does lead to the follow ing re s e a r c h questions: 1. Is the adult s tu tte r e r an im p a tie n t individual? 2. H as the adult s tu t t e r e r resig n e d h im se lf to a ro le so that he d oes not feel a need to plan out w hat he is going to sa y ? j In attem pting to isolate com ponents of the pro b lem of stuttering* the above co n stitu tes, p e rh a p s , a token re p re s e n ta tio n of the potential ; I a r e a s for investigation. R E F E R E N C E S 34 . .. J R E FER EN C ES A d am s, M. , and D ietze, D. A c o m p a ris o n of the rea c tio n tim e s of s t u t t e r e r s and n o n s tu tte r e rs to ite m s on a w ord a sso c ia tio n te s t. J o u rn a l of Speech and H earing R e s e a r c h , 1965, 8_, 195-202. j I A rieti, S. The p r o c e s s e s of expectation and anticipation, th e ir genetic! developm ent, n e u ra l b a s is , and role in psychopathology. J o u rn a l of N ervous and M ental D is e a s e , 1947, 100, 471-481. B ard ick , R. & Sheehan, J. E m otional loading as a s o u rc e of conflict I in stu tterin g . A m e ric a n P s y c h o lo g is t, 1956, J_l, 391. | B e rn h a rd t, R. B. P e rs o n a lity conflict and the act of stuttering. i D is s e r ta tio n A b s tr a c ts , 1954, 14, 709. B loodstein, O. H ypothetical conditions under which stuttering is reduced o r absent. J o u rn a l of Speech and H earin g D i s o r d e r s , 1950, 15_, 142-153. B orghi, R. A study of the rea c tio n tim e s of s tu t t e r e r s and n o n s tu tte r e r s to v e rb a l stim u li. Unpublished M a s te rs th e s is , U niversity of R edlands, 1955. Cole, R. Pilot study: S tuttering and te m p o ra lity . U niversity of S o u th ern C alifo rn ia, 1969. C ooper, D. The effects of unknown tim e on the frequency of stuttering. U npublished r e s e a r c h , U n iv ersity of Southern C alifornia[n.d.]. C r o m e r , R. F. The developm ent of te m p o r a l r e f e re n c e during the a cq u isitio n of language. Unpublished d o c to ra l d iss e rta tio n , H a rv a rd U n iv e rsity , 1968. C u rle e , R ., & P e r k in s , W. H. The effect of punishm ent of expectancy to stu tte r on the fre q u e n c ie s of subsequent expectancies and s tu tterin g . J o u rn a l of Speech and H e a rin g R e s e a rc h , 1968, 11, 787-795. 35 D a h ls tro m , W. G. & C rav en , D. D. The M M PI and stuttering phenom-< ena in young adults. A m e ric a n P s y c h o lo g is t, 1952, 1_, 341, a b s tr a c t. de Greeff, E tienne, E. La perso n n alite du debile m en tal. In R\ May (E d .), E x is te n c e . New York: B asic Books, In c., 1958, p. 107. E isen so n , J . & H orow itz, E. The influence of propositionality on s tu tte rin g . Jo u rn a l of Speech and H earin g D i s o r d e r s , 1945, 10, 193-197. E isen so n , J . , et al. The psychology of c o m m u n ic a tio n . New York: A p p le to n -C e n tu ry -C ro fts , 1963. F e rg u so n , G. E. S tatistical analysis in psychology and education (2nd ed. ). New York: M cG raw -H ill, 1966. F ont, M. M . A c o m p a ris o n of the fre e a s s o c ia tio n s of s tu tte r e r s and n o n s tu t t e r e r s . In W. Johnson ( E d . ), Stuttering in children and a d u lt s . M inneapolis: U niversity of M innesota P r e s s , 1955. F re u n d , H. P sychopathological a s p e c ts of stu tterin g . A m e ric a n J o u rn a l of P s y c h o th e ra p y , 1953, 1_, 689-705. Gifford, M . F . In E. Hahn (Ed. ), Stuttering: Significant th e o rie s and t h e r a p i e s . Stanford, C alifornia: Stanford U niversity P r e s s , 1956. Johnson, W. , D a rle y , F . , & S p rie s te rs b a c h , D. D iagnostic m ethods in sp e ec h pathology. New York: H a r p e r and Row, 1968, p. 168. Johnson, W. , et a l . Speech handicapped school c h ild ren (Rev, e d .). N ew York: H a rp e r and B r o th e r s , 1950. Johnson, W. , e t a l . Speech handicapped school ch ild ren (3rd ed. ). N ew York: H a rp e r and Row, 1967. K e rla n g e r, F . F oundations of b e h a v io ra l r e s e a r c h . New York: Holt, ; R in e h a rt and W inston, I n c ., 1964. K line, D. An e x p e rim e n ta l study of the freq u en cy of stuttering in j r e la tio n to c e rta in goal activity d r iv e s in b a sic hum an behavior.! Speech M o n o g ra p h s , 1959, 26, 137. A b s tra c t. M ay, R. E x is te n c e . New York: Basic Books, I n c ., 1958. 37 M oore, W. R elations of stu tterin g in spontaneous speech to speech content and to adaptation. J o u rn a l of Speech and H earin g D i s o r d e r s , 1954, 19., 208-216. M oore, W. , S oderberg, G. , & Pow ell, D. R elations of stu tterin g in spontaneous speech and v e rb a l output. J o u rn a l of Speech and H earing D i s o r d e r s , 1952, 17, 371-376. Nunnally, T. P s y c h o m e tric t h e o r y . New York: M c G raw -H ill, Inc. , 1967. R ich ard so n , T. H. A p e rso n a lity study of s tu tte r e r s and n o n s tu tte r e rs . J o u rn a l of Speech D i s o r d e r s , 1944, % 152-160. Ringel, R. T. & M inifie, F . D. P ro te n s ity e s tim a te s of s t u t t e r e r s and n o n s tu tte r e rs . J o u rn a l of Speech and H earing R e s e a r c h , 1966, 9, 289-296. Santostefano, S. Anxiety and hostility in stuttering. J o u rn a l of Speech and H earing R e s e a r c h , 1969, 3^, 337-347. Sham es, G. , Ego If, D. , & Rhodes, R. E x p e rim e n ta l p r o g r a m s in stuttering th e r a p y , 1969, 34, 30-47. Sheehan, J. Conflict th eo ry of stuttering. In J. E isen so n (E d.), Stuttering: A s y m p o s iu m . New York: H a r p e r and Row, 1958. Sheehan, J. P ro je c tiv e studies of stu tterin g . J o u rn a l of Speech and H earing D i s o r d e r s , 1958, 2 3 , 18-25. Siegel, S. N o n p a ra m e tric sta tis tic s for the B ehavioral S c ie n c e s . New York: M cG raw -H ill, I n c ., 1958. S traus, E. W. D i s o r d e r s of p e rs o n a l tim e in d e p re s s iv e sta te s, Southern M edical J o u r n a l , 1947, 4 0 , 254-259. Stunden, A. The effects of tim e p r e s s u r e a s a va ria b le in the v e rb a l behavior of s tu t t e r e r s . D is s e rta tio n A b s t r a c t s , 1965, 26, 1784-1785. 1 T r a v is , L. E. The u nspeakable feelings of people with sp e cia l r e f e r - j ence to stu tterin g . In L. E. T r a v is (E d.), Handbook of Speech ‘ Pathology. New York: A ppleton-C entury C rofts, 1971. j I | _ ................................................ _ _ ......................J 38 Van R ip e r, C. The n a tu re of stu tterin g . Englewood Cliffs, N. J . : P r e n tic e - H a ll, I n c ., 1971. Van R ip e r, C. M ilisen, R. A study of the predicted duration of the s tu t t e r e r s ' blocks a s re la te d to th eir actual d u r a tio r. J o u rn a l of Speech D i s o r d e r s , 1939, 4, 339-346. Walnut, F . A p e rso n a lity inventory ite m analysis of individuals who stu tter and individuals who have other handicaps. J o u rn a l of Speech and H earing D i s o r d e r s , 1954, lj?, 220-227. W illiam s, E. A point of view about stuttering. J o u rn a l of Speech and H earing D i s o r d e r s , 1957, 22, 390-397. A P P E N D I X E S 39 A PPEN D IX A SCREENING INTERVIEW 40 A P PE N D IX A SCREENING INTERVIEW N a m e : _________ Interview Date: A d d r e s s : ______ P a r e n ts : _______ P le a s e check one: Ye s No 1. I c o n sid e r th is individual to m an ifest stuttering b e h a v io r._________________________________ _____ _____ 2. T his individual h as attended c la s s e s at an a c c re d ite d school and has n ever been e n ro lled in sp ecial education c l a s s e s for m entally r e ta r d e d students. _____ _____ 3. This individual is capable of talking c o n sistently about a given topic for a p p ro x i m ate ly th re e m in u te s. (Suggested topics a re : good tim e s ; a s s o c ia te s ; fe a r s ; m is d e e d s; p a re n ts . ) _____ _____ 4. This individual u n d e rs ta n d s that a study is being conducted, em ploying audio tape, and w h e re he will be asked to talk about y e s t e r day, today, and to m o rro w . _____ _____ 5. T his individual h as a g re e d to p a rticip a te in this before m entioned study._____________________________ _____ B i r t h d a t e : ________________ Age: P h o n e : __ Speech P a th o lo g ist A P PE N D IX B INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS 42 A P PE N D IX B INSTRUCTIONS TO SU BJECTS I w ant to m a k e a tape r e c o rd in g in which you will be given 3 different speaking ta s k s . When I place this c a rd in front of you (cue c a rd on which is printed the w ord YESTERDAY), I want you to talk continuously for 3 m in u te s about what you did y e s te rd a y . When the 3 m in u tes is up, I w ill then place this c a rd in front of you (cue c a rd on which is printed the w ord STOP), and we will pause (for ten seconds). Then I will place th is c ard in fro n t of you (cue c ard on which is printed the w ord TODAY), and I will w ant you to talk continuously for 3 m i n utes about what you a re doing today, including right now. When the 3 m in u tes is up, I will again p lace this c ard in front of you (STOP) and we will pause (for ten seconds). Then I will place this c a rd in fro n t of you (cue c a rd on which is printed the w ord TOMORROW), and I will want you to talk continuously for 3 m in u tes about what you m ight do or expect to do to m o rro w . When the 3 m in u tes is up, I will again place this c a rd in front of you (STOP). (The sequence of topics stated in the in stru c tio n s p a ra lle l Table 1.) When I place each c a rd in front of you indicating your topics, y e s te rd a y , today, and to m o rro w , you m ay s ta r t talking right away o r think about each topic as long a s you like. P le a s e show m e when you a re ready to s ta rt talking by nodding your head. Do you have any q u e s tio n s ? (The following sta te m e n t is then m ade im m ediately upon c o m pletion of all speaking t a s k s . ) Now, tell m e when you e x p e rie n c e d the m o s t difficulty, when you w e re talking about y e ste rd a y , when you w e re talking about today, o r when you w e re talking about to m o rro w . 43 A PPEN DIX C INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES 44 A PPEN D IX C INSTRUCTIONS TO JUD GES You will e x p e rie n c e a tape rec o rd in g of an individual who s tu tte rs . He has been given th re e d ifferen t speaking topics o rie n ted to the past, p re s e n t, and fu tu re . A s he begins to talk, m a r k the protocol you have been supplied with in the following m a n n e r : m ak e a s la s h m a r k on e a ch w ord in w hich stuttering (repetition o r prolongation of a sound o r syllable) is p e rc e iv e d . All a tte m p ts m a d e by the individual to say a given syllable a r e to be counted a s one m o m e n t of stuttering. A fter the subject c o m p le te s the one hundred and tw entieth w ord of each topic, I will ask you how m any m o m e n ts of stu tterin g you noted. At le a s t two of you m u s t a g re e upon the n u m b er of m o m e n ts of stuttering which o c c u rr e d . The se g m e n t will be replayed until th is a g re e m e n t has been m a d e . A re th e re any questions before we begin? 45 I A P PE N D IX D SU B JE C T S' REACTIONS 46 Child »1 SUBJECTS1 REACTIONS R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m enter s e ts the cue card in front o f a subject and the m om ent the subject nods h is head, indicating he is ready to v e r b a lise ) Y esterday _____ 3______ seco n d s Today 12 seco n d s T om orrow 16 secon d s E xperienced D ifficu lty M ost d ifficu lt top ic Yeste rdav N ext m o st d iffic u lt topic Today_________ L ea st d iffic u lt topic T o m o rr o w Stuttering M om ents (two out o f th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--1 2 0 word sam ple) Y esterday______ J __________ 15 (1st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ords) Today 6_________ 8 (1st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ords) T om orrow ___________3_________ 9 (1st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ords) Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m in u tes) Y esterday 178 Today 140 T om orrow 197 Child #2 SUBJECTS' REACTIONS R eaction tim e (laten cy period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m en ter s e ts the cue card in fron t o f a subject and the m om en t the su bject nods h is head , indicating he is ready to v e r b a lise ) Y esterday Today T om orrow 24 19 secon d s seco n d s secon d s E xp erien ced D ifficu lty M ost d ifficu lt topic N ext m o st d ifficu lt topic L ea st d ifficu lt topic T o m o rr o w Today Y esterday Stuttering M om ents (two out o f th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--1 2 0 word sam ple) Y esterday Today T om orrow (1st 20 w ord s) 0_______ (1 st 20 w ord s) 0_______ (1 st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ords) 2_________ (next 100 w ord s) 6_________ (next 100 w ords) Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m in u tes) Y esterday 336 Today 382 T om orrow 431 Child #3 SUBJECTS' REACTIONS R eaction tim e (latency period b etw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m en ter s e t s the cue card in front o f a su bject and the m om ent the su b ject nods h is head, indicating he is ready to v erb a lise) Y esterd ay Today T om orrow 45 28 51 seconds seconds seconds E xp erien ced D ifficulty M ost d iffic u lt topic N ext m o st d ifficu lt topic L e a st d iffic u lt topic T o m o rr o w Today Y esterd a y Stuttering M om ents (two out of th ree judges a g ree m en t--1 2 0 w ord sam p le) Y esterd ay Today T om orrow 1 (1 st 20 w ords) _________3 (1 st 20 w ords) Q _______ (1 st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) _________ 4________ (next 100 w ords) __________5________ (next 100 w ords) Num ber o f W ords Spoken (3 m in u tes) Y esterd ay 202 Today 119 T om orrow 170 50 Child #4 SUBJECTS1 REACTIONS R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m enter aeta the cue card in front of a aubject and the m om en t the aubject noda hia head, indicating he ia ready to v erb a lize) Y eaterday Today Tom orrow 11 11 aeconda seconda aeconda 2 . E xperienced D ifficulty M oat d ifficu lt topic N ext m o st d ifficu lt topic L ea st d ifficu lt topic Y esterday T o m o rro w Today Stuttering M om enta (two out of th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--1 2 0 word sam ple) Y eaterday Today Tom orrow (1st 20 w ords) 0 (1 st 20 w ords) 1 (1 st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ord s) 0_________ (next 100 w ord s) 6________ (next 100 w ords) Number of W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) 384 Y esterday Today Tom orrow 443 421 Child #5 SUBJECTS' REACTIONS R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m en ter s e ts the cue card in front of a subject and the m om en t the su b ject nods h is head, indicating he is ready to v erb a lize) Y esterday _____32 secon d s Today _____20 secon d s T om orrow _____ 39 secon d s E xp erien ced D ifficulty M ost d ifficu lt topic T o m o rro w N ext m o st d ifficu lt topic Y esterday L e a st d ifficu lt topic Today_________ Stuttering M om ents (two out of th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--1 2 0 word sam ple) Y esterday 1 ____________ 2 (1st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ords) Today 1 ____________ 1 (1st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ord s) T om orrow 1 ____________ 5 (1 st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) Y esterday 307 Today 217 T om orrow 279 52 Child #6 SUBJECTS' REACTIONS R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m en ter seta the cue card in front o f a aubject and the m om ent the aubject node hi a head, indicating he ia ready to v erb a lise) Y eaterday Today T om orrow aeconda aeconda aeconda 2. E xp erien ced D ifficulty M oat d ifficu lt topic N ext m o a t d ifficu lt topic L ea st d iffic u lt topic T o m o rro w Today Y esterday Stuttering M om enta (two out of th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--120 word sam ple) Y esterd ay Today T om orrow (1st 20 w ords) 6 (1st 20 w ords) 6 (1st 20 w ords) 18 (next 100 w ords) ________ 17________ (next 100 worda) 21________ (next 100 w ords) 4. Num ber o f W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) 180 Y eaterday Today T om orrow 133 151 Child #7 SUBJECTS' REACTIONS R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m enter se ts the cue card in front o f a subject and the m om en t the subject nods h is head, indicating he is ready to v erb a lize) Y esterday 28 secon d s Today 17 seco n d s T om orrow 6 secon d s E xperienced D ifficulty M ost d ifficu lt topic Yeste rday N ext m o st d ifficu lt topic T o m o rro w L ea st d ifficu lt topic Today_________ Stuttering M om ents (two out of th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--120 word sam ple) Y esterday______ 2__________________ 6 (1 st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ord s) Today 0___________________ 7 (1 st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ord s) Tom orrow ___________ 2__________________ 4 (1 st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) Number of W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) Y esterday 172 Today 110 Tom orrow 74 54 Teenager tfl SUBJECTS' REACTIONS 1. R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i- m en ter s e ts the cue card in front of a aubject and the m om ent the aubject node hia head, indicating he ia ready to verb alize) Y eaterday 6 aeconda Today 10 aeconda T om orrow 14 aeconda 2. E xperienced D ifficulty M oat d ifficu lt topic T o m o rr o w N ext m oat d ifficu lt topic Today_________ L ea st d ifficu lt topic Y esterday 3. Stuttering M om enta (two out of th ree judges a g ree m en t--1 2 0 word sam ple) Y esterday 2__________________ 5 (1st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ords) Today 2__________________ 4 (1 st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ord s) T om orrow ___________2__________________ 7 (1 st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ords) 4. Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m in u tes) Y esterd ay 381 Today 389 T om orrow 383 T eenager #2 SUBJECTS1 REACTIONS R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p eri m en ter s e ts the cue card in front o f a aubject and the m om ent the aubject node hia head, indicating he ia ready to v erb a lize) Y eaterday Today T om orrow 11 11 aeconda aeconda aeconda E xp erien ced D ifficulty M oat d iffic u lt topic N ext m oat d ifficu lt topic L ea st d iffic u lt topic T om orrow Today Y esterday Stuttering M om enta (two out o f th ree judgea a g r e e m e n t--120 w ord sam ple) Y eaterday Today T om orrow 8 22 (1st 20 w ords) ________ 5_______ (1st 20 w ords) ________5_______ (1st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) ________14________ (next 100 w ords) 11________ (next 100 w ords) N um ber of W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) Y esterd ay 290 Today 273 T om orrow 243 56 T eenager #3 SUBJECTS' REACTIONS 1. R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m enter aeta the cue card in front o f a aubject and the m om en t the aubject noda hia head, indicating he ia ready to v e r b a liz e ) Y eaterday 25 _aeconda Today 10 aeconda T om orrow 27 _aeconda 2 . E xperienced D ifficulty M oat d ifficu lt topic T o m o rro w N ext m oat d ifficu lt topic Today_________ L eaat d ifficu lt topic Y esterday 3. Stuttering M omenta (two out of th ree judgea a g r e e m e n t--120 word sam ple) Y esterday______ 1 __________________ 4 (1 st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ord s) Today 2__________________ 3 (1 st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ord s) Tom orrow ___________ 3__________________ 5 (1 st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ords) I 4 . Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) I Y esterday 493 Today 456 Tom orrow 447 I I j j 57 T e e n ag e r #4 SUBJECTS' REACTIONS 1. R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m en ter a ets the cue card in front o f a aubject and the m om ent the aubject node hi a head, indicating he ia ready to v erb a lize) Y eaterday 30 aeconda Today 7 aeconda T om orrow _____76 aeconda 2. E xp erien ced D ifficulty M oat d ifficu lt topic T o m o rro w N ext m oat d ifficu lt topic Y esterday L e a st d ifficu lt topic Today_________ 3. Stuttering M om enta (two out o f three judges a g r e e m e n t--120 word sam p le) Y eaterday __________12_________________ 10 (1st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ords) Today___________ 7_________________ 16 (1st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ord s) T om orrow 8 20 (1st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ords) 4. Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) Y esterd ay 59 Today 69 T om orrow 94 58 Teenager #5 SUBJECTS' REACTIONS 1. R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i- m en ter s e ts the cue card in front of a aubject and the m om ent the aubject noda hi a head, indicating he ia ready to v erb a lise) Y eaterday f _____ aeconda Today ______4 aeconda T om orrow ______4 aeconda 2. E xp erien ced D ifficulty M oat d ifficu lt topic T o m o rro w N ext m oat d ifficu lt topic Today_________ L e a st d ifficu lt topic Y esterday 3. Stuttering M om ents (two out of three judges a g reem en t-* 120 word sam p le) Y eaterday 4_________ 16 (1st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) Today___________ 2_________ 15 (1st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) T om orrow ___________2_________ 9 (1st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) 4. N um ber of W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) Y eaterday 314 Today 366 T om orrow 325 Teenager §6 SU B JEC TS1 REACTIONS R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m en ter s e ts the cue card in front o f a subject and the m om ent the subject nods h is head, indicating he is ready to v erb a lize) Y esterday Today T om orrow 18 14 17 secon d s secon d s secon d s E xperienced D ifficulty M ost d ifficu lt topic N ext m o st d ifficu lt topic L ea st d ifficu lt topic T o m o rro w Y esterday Today Stuttering M om ents (two out of th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--1 2 0 word sam ple) Y esterday Today T om orrow 17 (1 st 20 w ords) ________4_______ (1 st 20 w ords) ________4_______ (1 st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) 20_________ (next 100 w ord s) _______ 13_________ (next 100 w ords) Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) Y esterday 1 ^ Today 105 T om orrow 96 60 Teenager #7 SUBJECTS' REACTIONS 1. R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m en ter s e ts the cue card in front of a su bject and the m om ent the su bject nods h is head, indicating he i s ready to v erb a lize) Y esterday Today T om orrow 11 secon d s secon d s secon d s 2. E xp erien ced D ifficulty M ost d ifficu lt topic N ext m o st d ifficu lt topic L ea st d ifficu lt topic T o m o rro w Today Ye sterdav 3. Stuttering M om ents (two out o f th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--120 word sam ple) Y esterday Today T om orrow (1st 20 w ords) 2_______ (1st 20 w ords) ________ 4 (1st 20 w ords) 8 (next 100 w ords) _________ 4_________ (next 100 w ords) 8________ (next 100 w ords) j 4 . Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m in u tes) Y esterday Today T om orrow 452 430 339 Adult §1 SUBJECTS' REACTIONS 1. R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i- m en ter s e ts the cue card in front of a su bject and the m om ent the su bject nods h is head, indicating he i s ready to v erb a lise) Y esterday Today T om orrow secon d s secon d s secon d s 2. E xp erien ced D ifficulty M ost d ifficu lt topic N ext m o st d ifficu lt topic L e a st d ifficu lt topic T o m o rro w Today Yeste rdav 3. Stuttering M om ents (two out o f th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--120 word sam ple) Y esterday Today T om orrow (1st 20 w ord s) 2_______ (1st 20 w ords) 0_______ (1st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) 10________ (next 100 w ord s) 2________ (next 100 w ords) Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m in u tes) Y esterday 200 Today T om orrow 193 166 62 Adult U SUBJECTS' REACTIONS 1. R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the ex p e r t- m en ter s e ts the cue card in front of a subject and the m om en t the subject nods h is head, indicating he is ready to v e r b a lise ) Y esterday Today Tom orrow 29 19 12 seco n d s secon d s secon d s 2. E xperienced D ifficu lty M ost d ifficu lt topic N ext m o st d iffic u lt topic L ea st d ifficu lt topic Today T o m o rro w Y esterday 3. Stuttering M om ents (two out of three judges a g r e e m e n t--120 word sam ple) Y esterday Today T om orrow 14 (1 st 20 w ords) ________ 4 (1 st 20 w ords) ________ 5 (1 st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ord s) _________ 7________ (next 100 w ord s) 9 (next 100 w ords) 4. Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) Y esterday 280 Today 236 T om orrow 206 A dult #3 SUBJECTS1 REACTIONS 1. R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m en ter s e ts the cue card in front o f a subject and the m om en t the su bject nods h is head, indicating he is ready to v erb a lize) Y esterd ay 11 seconds Today 5 seconds T om orrow 8 seconds E xp erien ced D ifficulty M ost d ifficu lt topic N ext m o st d ifficu lt topic L e a st d ifficu lt topic T om orrow Today Y esterd ay Stuttering M om ents (two out of th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--120 word sam ple) Y esterd ay Today T om orrow 14 (1st 20 w ords) _________3 (1 st 20 w ords) 2_______ (1st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) _________ 9_________ (next 100 w ords) ________ U _________ (next 100 w ords) 4. Num ber o f W ords Spoken (3 m in u tes) Y esterd ay 211 Today 202 T om orrow 281 Adult #4 SUBJECTS1 REACTIONS 1. R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m enter s e ts the cue card in front o f a aubject and the m om ent the aubject node hi a head, indicating he ia ready to v erb a lize) Y eaterday Today T om orrow 19 11 16 aeconda aeconda aeconda 2. E xp erien ced D ifficulty M oat d ifficu lt topic N ext m oat d ifficu lt topic L eaat d ifficu lt topic Y esterday Today T o m o rro w 3. Stuttering M omenta (two out of th ree judges a g ree m en t— 120 word a am ple) Y eaterday Today T om orrow 12 (1 st 20 w ords) 2 (1 st 20 w ords) 2_______ (1st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) 6________ (next 100 w ords) 6_________ (next 100 w ords) 4 . Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) Y esterd ay 249 Today 306 T om orrow 277 Adult #5 SUBJECTS' REACTIONS R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m en ter s e ts the cue card in front o f a aubject and the m om en t the su bject nods hi a head, indicating he ia ready to v e r b a lise ) Y esterday Today T om orrow secon d s secon d s secon d s E xperienced D ifficulty M ost d ifficu lt topic N ext m o st d ifficu lt topic L ea st d ifficu lt topic T o m o rro w Y esterday Today Stuttering M om ents (two out o f th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--120 word sam ple) Y esterday Today T om orrow (1 st 20 w ord s) 2 (1 st 20 w ords) 1 _______ (1 st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ords) _________ 4_________ (next 100 w ord s) _________ 9_________ (next 100 w ords) Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m in u tes) Y esterday 370 Today T om orrow 383 354 -------- Adult #6 SUBJECTS1 REACTIONS 1. R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m enter s e ts the cue card in front o f a su bject and the m om en t the subject nods h is head, indicating he is ready to v e r b a lise ) Y esterd ay ______ 5 seco n d s Today 8_____ secon d s T om orrow ______8 secon d s 2. E xperienced D ifficulty M ost d ifficu lt top ic Today N ext m o st d iffic u lt topic Y esterday L ea st d ifficu lt topic T o m o rro w 3. Stuttering M om ents (two out of th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--120 word sam ple) Y esterday 1 __________ 12 (1st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) Today___________ 1 __________ 8 (1st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ord s) T om orrow 3__________ 4 (1st 20 w ords) (next 100 w ords) 4. Num ber o f W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) Y esterday 266 Today 301 T om orrow 271 I I l Adult §7 SUBJECTS' REACTIONS R eaction tim e (latency period betw een the m om ent the e x p e r i m enter seta the cue card in front o f a subject and the m om en t the su bject nods h is head, indicating he is ready to v e r b a liz e ) Y esterday 13 secon d s Today _____13 secon d s T om orrow 11 secon d s E xperienced D ifficulty M ost d ifficu lt topic T o m o rro w N ext m o st d ifficu lt topic Yeste rday L ea st d ifficu lt topic Today_________ Stuttering M om ents (two out of th ree judges a g r e e m e n t--1 2 0 word sam ple) Y esterday 2____ 6__________ (1st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ord s) Today 2____ 12 (1st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ord s) T om orrow 5____ 8 (1 st 20 w ord s) (next 100 w ords) Num ber of W ords Spoken (3 m inutes) Y esterday 111 Today 127 T om orrow 118 A PPEN D IX E ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX 68 A P P E N D IX E ROTATED FA CTO R MATRIX V ariable h2 1 2 3 4 1 . 665 -0. 2 . 692 -0. 3 . 795 4 . 934 -0. 5 . 959 6 . 866 -0. 7 .715 8 . 474 -0. 9 . 210 10 .474 -0. 11 . 562 12 . 367 -0. 13 . 335 -0. 14 . 450 , 15 . 434 • 16 . 799 17 . 979 • 18 . 841 . 284 .258 -0 .7 1 7 676 .180 -0 .4 3 7 137 .272 -0 .8 3 2 155 -0 .9 5 3 .024 018 -0 .9 6 7 .138 065 -0 .9 2 8 .009 147 -0 .1 5 4 -0 .0 8 9 233 -0 .2 5 3 -0 .0 4 0 016 .379 .058 552 .164 -0 .3 6 0 570 -0 .3 1 9 -0 .2 6 7 009 .137 .587 231 .173 .356 135 -0 .1 2 6 -0 .5 4 1 057 -0 .0 3 3 .112 799 .387 -0 .0 8 8 784 .560 -0 .1 7 3 771 .405 -0 .2 2 7 . 061 Yeste rday . 110 Today -0 .0 9 6 T o m o rro w -0.023 Y esterday . 074 Today . 026 T o m o rro w -0 .8 1 4 Y esterday . 595 Today . 250 T o m o rro w . 112 Child -0 .2 5 4 Teen . 053 Adult . 354 Y esterday . 352 Today -0 .6 4 6 T o m o rro w -0 .0 6 0 Y esterday -0. 148 Today -0.173 T o m o rro w R eaction T im e W ord Output R eported Difficulty Age O r d e r of Initial T a sk ! Stuttering! F requenc^ A P PE N D IX F FA C T O R MATRIX A P PE N D IX F FA C T O R MATRIX F a c to r I — Stuttering a s R elated to Age and R eaction Tim e . 80 s tu tte rin g on " y e s te rd a y " . 78 stu tterin g on "today" . 77 stu tterin g on "to m o rro w " - 0 .6 8 re a c tio n tim e on "today" . 57 age 2 (te e n ag e rs) -0. 55 age 1 (children) F a c to r II — W ord Output as Related to Stuttering • 97 output on "today" • 95 output on " y e s te rd a y " • 93 output on " to m o rro w " - 0 .5 6 stu tterin g on "today" -0 .4 1 stu tte rin g on " to m o rro w " F a c to r III — R eaction T im e a s R elated to Age and O r d e r . 83 re a c tio n tim e on " to m o rro w " . 72 re a c tio n tim e on "y este rd a y " -0. 59 age 3 (adults) . 54 o r d e r 2 (today p rese n ted first) • 44 re a c tio n tim e on "today" F a c to r IV — R e p o rte d T ask Difficulty as Related to O r d e r -0 .8 1 re p o r te d difficulty, " y este rd a y " | .6 5 o r d e r 3 (to m o rro w p resen ted first) . 60 r e p o rte d difficulty, "today"

Asset Metadata

Creator Cole, Robert Crane, Jr. (author)

Core Title Stuttering and time perspective

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communicative Disorders

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag health sciences, speech pathology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Haney, Russell (committee chair), Buscaglia, Leo F. (committee member), Perkins, William H. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-786739

Unique identifier UC11364403

Identifier 7309308.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-786739 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7309308

Dmrecord 786739

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cole, Robert Crane, Jr.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA