Developmental Stuttering Screening Instrument: evidence of sensitivity and accuracy measures
Mayra Maria Oliveira de Lima; Ana Augusta de Andrade Cordeiro; Bianca Arruda Manchester de Queiroga
Abstract
Purpose: to verify the sensitivity and accuracy measures of the Developmental Stuttering Screening Instrument (DSSI).
Methods: the DSSI was administered to 30 parents/guardians of children aged 2 to 5 years and 11 months with and without complaint of stuttering. The instrument administration was timed. The sensitivity analysis used the Weight of Evidence (WoE) binary classification model to verify the strength level of the items. The cutoff scores were established with grouping analysis with the k-means cluster method, based on the minimum and maximum values of each identified group's scores. The data were analyzed with the SPSS statistical software (version 20.0) and were considered significant with p ≤ 0.05.
Results: the interviews lasted an overall mean of 17 minutes. The WoE model revealed that the items with the greatest predictive strength for risk of stuttering were the social reaction to their speech, the physical concomitants, and the comprehension of the child's speech. The correspondence analysis showed a strong association between "having complaints" and "high total score", as well as between "not having complaints" and "low total score", indicating that the parents' complaints are a factor that leads to high scores in the instrument. "Sex" had little predictive effect for risk. The grouping analysis enabled the stratification of subjects into three risk levels: "not at risk", "under observation", and "at risk".
Conclusion: the instrument presented the first evidence of sensitivity and accuracy measures, thus, making the identification of risk of developmental stuttering in preschoolers, possible.
Keywords
Referências
. Onslow M, O'Brian S. Management of childhood stuttering. J Paediatr Child Health. 2013;49(2):E112-5.
2. Yairi E. Future research and clinical directions in stuttering: global considerations. 2016. Available at: https://www.stutteringhelp.org/future-research.
3. Smith A, Weber C. How stuttering develops: the multifactorial dynamic pathways theory. J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2017;60(9):2483-505.
4. Mohamadi O, Rahimi-Madiseh M, Sedehi M. The prevalence of stuttering, voice disorders, and speech sound disorders in preeschoolers in Shahrekord, Iran. Int J Child Youth Family Stud. 2016;7(3/4):456-71.
5. Thapa KB, Okalidou A, Anastasiadou S. Teachers' screening estimations of speechlanguage impairments in primary school children in Nepal. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2016;51(3):310-27.
6. Shimada M, Toyomura A, Fujii T, Minami T. Children who stutter at 3 years of age: a community-based study. J Fluency Disord. 2018;56:45-54.
7. Ward D. Risk factors and stuttering: evaluating the evidence for clinicians. J Fluency Disord. 2013;38(2):134-40.
8. Oliveira CMC, Souza HA, Santos AC, Cunha D, Giacheti CM. Fatores de risco na gagueira desenvolvimental familial e isolada. Rev. CEFAC. 2011;13(2):205-213.
9. Howell P. Screening school-aged children for risk of stuttering. J Fluency Disord. 2013;38(2):102-23.
10. Mirawdeli A, Howell P. Is it necessary to assess fluent symptoms, duration of dysfluent events, and physical concomitants when identifying children who have speech difficulties? Clin Linguist Phon. 2016;30(9):696-719.
11. Lima MMO. Identificação de risco para a gagueira do desenvolvimento: elaboração e validação de um instrumento de rastreio [thesis]. Recife (PE): Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; 2020.
12. Lima MMO, Cordeiro AAA, Queiroga BAM. Developmental Stuttering Screening Instrument: development and content validation. Rev. CEFAC. 2021;23(1):1-19.
13. Pernambuco L, Espelt A, Magalhães Junior HV, Lima KC. Recommendations for elaboration, transcultural adaptation and validation process of tests in Speech, Hearing and Language Pathology. CoDAS. 2017;29(3):e20160217.
14. Siddiqi N. Credit risk scorecards: developing and implementing intelligent credit scoring. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2006.
15. Siegel S, Castellan Jr NJ. Estatística não-paramétrica para ciências do comportamento. São Paulo: Bookman (Artmed), 2006.
16. Greenacre M. Correspondence analysis in practice. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2007.
17. Johnson RA, Wichern DW. Applied multivariate statistical analysis. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, 2007.
18. Goulart BNG, Chiari BM. Testes de rastreamento x testes de diagnóstico: atualidades no contexto da atuação fonoaudiológica. Pró-Fono R. Atual. Cient. 2007;19(2):223-32.
19. Brasil, Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde. Departamento de Atenção Básica. Rastreamento. Série A. Normas e Manuais Técnicos Cadernos de Atenção Primária. 2010;(29):1-95.
20. Best Practice Advocacy Centre New Zealand. The use of Screening Tests. 2010, p.2-7. Available at: https://bpac.org.nz/BT/2010/July/docs/best_test_jul2010_screening_pages2-7.pdf.
21. Etges CL, Scheeren B, Gomes E, Barbosa LR. Screening tools for dysphagia: a systematic review. CoDAS. 2014;26(5):343-9.
22. Eichorn N, Fabus R. Assessment of stuttering disorders in children and adults chapter. In: Cyndi S-R, Renee F, editors. A Guide to clinical assessment and professional report writing in speech-language pathology. New York: Cengage Learning, 2012. p.347-98.
23. Salehpoor A, Latifi Z, Tohidast SA. Evaluating parents' reactions to children's stuttering using a Persian version of Reaction to Speech Disfluency Scale. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;134:110076.
24. Ceron MI, Gubiani MB, Oliveira CR. Keske-Soares M. Normative features of phoneme acquisition in Brazilian portuguese. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2020;72(3):228-41.
25. McAllister J. Behavioural, emotional and social development of children who stutter. J Fluency Disord. 2016;50:23-32.
26. Chang S-E, Angstadt M, Chow HM, Etchell AC, Garnett EO, Choo AL et al. Anomalous network architecture of the resting brain in children who stutter. J Fluency Disord. 2018;55:46-67.
27. Weber-Fox C, Wray AH, Arnold H. Early childhood stuttering and electrophysiological indices of language processing. J Fluency Disord. 2013;38(2):206-21.
Submetido em:
11/10/2021
Aceito em:
08/11/2021
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email