Question regarding article From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 10/5/99 Time: 5:22:19 PM Remote Name: 188.8.131.52 Comments I am a graduate student at Minnesota State University-Mankato in the Speech, Hearing, and Rehabilitation Department. I found your article very interesting. You described your 60 listeners as 13 males, 47 females, between the age of 19 and 52, ten, of which, had limited exposure or experience with persons who stutter. I would be interested i knowing a little more about other factors regarding thee individuals (i.e. socio-economic background, education levels, occupations) and whether you felt these factors had any significant connections to their responses. Thank you for your reply. Laurie Ling; MSU-Mankato (USA) Re: Question regarding article From: Michael Susca Date: 10/6/99 Time: 10:02:34 AM Remote Name: 184.108.40.206 Comments Hello Laurie: Just for clarification, ALL participants (not just ten) had limited exposure or experience with persns who stutter. A total of ten people listened to each sample, each person hearing a sample only once. Regarding socio-economic backgrounds, education levels, and occupations: We did not specifically ask for that kind of background information. We were most concerned with previous experiences with people who stutter: did they personally know anyone who stuttered, had they observed anyone who stuttered (in a school, social, film, or clinic situation), or other things that might bias their listening to the sample. But we did NOT ask about stuttering specifically: we asked about their experiences with communication disorders in general and let their responses guide the next questions to rule out experiences with stuttering specifically. If any statement was volunteered indicating more than just having heard the term stuttering, that was sufficient for exclusion from the study. People came from a nearby neighborhood, volunteers from non-speech related classes I was taking, office workers, friends of the people who came in, and some undergrads from a special ed class. I can't be more specific about socio-economic, educational, or occupational factors (we didn't ask for these) but I don't think these had any significant connections to their responses. I hope that answers your question. Thanks for asking! Michael Susca Not just speech mechanics From: Ed Feuer Date: 10/6/99 Time: 1:07:37 PM Remote Name: 220.127.116.11 Comments You say: "From a clinical perspective, it may be helpful for clinicians to have a group of listeners evaluate and comment on samples of speech obtained from the adult or child who stutters. These responses could be used to determine the perceived quality and competence of the client's speech at various stages of treatment." Yes, that's good. Like focus groups for a politician seeking to alter image. But given the reality of stuttering, you can't limit change to speech mechanics. The person who stutter needs education in developing interpersonal skills and improving other factors that affect appearance. Such things are beyond the competancy of the garden variety SLP clinician. Ñ Ed Feuer email@example.com Re: Not just speech mechanics From: Michael Susca Date: 10/6/99 Time: 3:21:49 PM Remote Name: 18.104.22.168 Comments Yes, I agree "you can't limit change to speech mechanics" and I believe the differences in listener's perceptions in both figures support that notion. Michael Susca Self-realization From: Mike Hughes, Ex. Dir., Speak Easy Inc. Date: 10/10/99 Time: 7:27:33 AM Remote Name: 22.214.171.124 Comments Your article was very interesting and well presented. The charts were illuminating! The results confirm what stutterers have always known -- that they can see, feel, taste, their listener's discomfort. This, of course, increases the pressure on the stutterer, resulting in even greater disfluency. I'm sure that our members would find your paper interesting. I'd like permission to reprint it in an upcoming issue of "Speaking Out," our monthly magazine. Please either post your reply or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.