Event‐ and interval‐based measurement of stuttering: a review. Issue 1 (11th June 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Valente, Ana Rita S.; Jesus, Luis M. T.; Hall, Andreia; Leahy, Margaret
• Is Part Of: International journal of language & communication disorders. Volume 50:Issue 1(2015)
• Page Start: 14
• Page End: 30
• Publication Date: 2014-06-11
• Subjects: Communicative disorders -- Periodicals; Speech therapy -- Periodicals; Speech disorders -- Periodicals; Language disorders -- Periodicals; 616.855
• DOI: 10.1111/1460-6984.12113
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1368-2822

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="jlcd12113-sec-0010" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p>Event‐ and interval‐based measurements are two different ways of computing frequency of stuttering. Interval‐based methodology emerged as an alternative measure to overcome problems associated with reproducibility in the event‐based methodology. No review has been made to study the effect of methodological factors in interval‐based absolute reliability data or to compute the agreement between the two methodologies in terms of inter‐judge, intra‐judge and accuracy (i.e., correspondence between raters' scores and an established criterion).</p> </sec> <sec id="jlcd12113-sec-0020" sec-type="section"> <title>Aims</title> <p>To provide a review related to reproducibility of event‐based and time‐interval measurement, and to verify the effect of methodological factors (training, experience, interval duration, sample presentation order and judgment conditions) on agreement of time‐interval measurement; in addition, to determine if it is possible to quantify the agreement between the two methodologies</p> </sec> <sec id="jlcd12113-sec-0030" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods & Procedures</title> <p>The first two authors searched for articles on ERIC, MEDLINE, PubMed, B‐on, CENTRAL and Dissertation Abstracts during January–February 2013 and retrieved 495 articles. Forty‐eight articles were selected for review. Content tables were constructed with the main findings.</p> </sec> <sec id="jlcd12113-sec-0040" sec-type="section"> <title>Main Contribution</title> <p>Articles related to event‐based measurements revealed values of inter‐ and intra‐judge greater than 0.70 and agreement percentages beyond 80%. The articles related to time‐interval measures revealed that, in general, judges with more experience with stuttering presented significantly higher levels of intra‐ and inter‐judge agreement. Inter‐ and intra‐judge values were beyond the references for high reproducibility values for both methodologies. Accuracy (regarding the closeness of raters' judgements with an established criterion), intra‐ and inter‐judge agreement were higher for trained groups when compared with non‐trained groups. Sample presentation order and audio/video conditions did not result in differences in inter‐ or intra‐judge results. A duration of 5 s for an interval appears to be an acceptable agreement. Explanation for high reproducibility values as well as parameter choice to report those data are discussed.</p> </sec> <sec id="jlcd12113-sec-0050" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions & Implications</title> <p>Both interval‐ and event‐based methodologies used trained or experienced judges for inter‐ and intra‐judge determination and data were beyond the references for good reproducibility values. Inter‐ and intra‐judge values were reported in different metric scales among event‐ and interval‐based methods studies, making it unfeasible to quantify the agreement between the two methods.</p> </sec> </abstract>