Fluency and reading comprehension in students with and without stuttering
Fluência e compreensão da leitura em escolares com e sem gagueira
Juliana Sandoval Pinto; Luana Altran Picoloto; Simone Aparecida Capellini; Talissa Almeida Palharini; Cristiane Moço Canhetti de Oliveira
Abstract
Purpose: To analyze and to compare fluency parameters in spontaneous speech and reading and reading comprehension of school-age children who stutter and who do not stutter. Methods: Cross-sectional and prospective study approved by the Research Ethics Committee. Sample consisted of 30 scholars aged 8 and 11 years and 11 months divided into two groups: Study Group with 15 school-age children who stutter, Control Group with 15 school-age children who do not stutter. Participants underwent fluency evaluation of spontaneous speech, reading of expository and narrative texts, and reading comprehension evaluation. Inferential statistical analysis was conducted using the Mann-Whitney tests and correlation analysis was conducted using the Spearman’s Coefficient test. Results: The comparison between the fluency parameters indicated that school-age children who stutter showed a greater amount of stuttering-like disfluencies, while school-age children who do not stutter showed longer flows of syllables and words per minute, in spontaneous speech and reading. Regarding reading comprehension, school-age children who stutter had lower performance than school-age children who do not stutter in both texts. There was no association between the frequency of disfluencies and reading comprehension in school-age children who stutter and who do not stutter. Conclusion: School-age children who stutter showed impairments in reading comprehension when compared to fluent, since there was no association between the frequencies of disfluencies with reading comprehension for both groups. It is suggested that reading comprehension be evaluated and, if necessary, improved in order to reduce the consequences of stuttering and provide learning of this school-age children.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: Analisar e comparar os parâmetros da fluência na fala espontânea e leitura a compreensão de leitura de escolares que gaguejam com fluentes. Método: Estudo transversal e prospectivo aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética da Instituição. Amostra composta por 30 escolares com idade entre 8 e 11 anos e 11 meses divididos em dois grupos: Grupo Pesquisa com 15 escolares com gagueira, Grupo Controle com 15 escolares fluentes. Os participantes foram submetidos à avaliação da fluência da fala espontânea, leitura dos textos expositivo e narrativo, e avaliação da compreensão de leitura. A análise estatística inferencial foi realizada por meio dos testes de Mann-Whitney e para análise de correlação foi utilizado o teste de Coeficiente de Spearman. Resultados: A comparação entre os parâmetros da fluência indicou que escolares com gagueira manifestaram maior quantidade de disfluências típicas da gagueira, enquanto os fluentes mostraram maiores fluxos de sílabas e de palavras por minuto, na fala espontânea e na leitura. Em relação à compreensão de leitura, escolares com gagueira apresentaram desempenho inferior ao fluentes, em ambos os textos. Não houve associação entre a frequência de disfluências e compreensão de leitura, nos escolares com e sem gagueira. Conclusão: Escolares com gagueira apresentaram prejuízos quanto à compreensão de leitura quando comparados à fluentes, porém não houve associação entre a frequência de disfluências com a compreensão de leitura em ambos os grupos. Sugere-se que a compreensão da leitura seja avaliada e se necessário trabalhada a fim de reduzir as consequências da gagueira e favorecer aprendizagem deste escolar.
Palavras-chave
Referencias
1. Rocha M, Yaruss JS, Rato JR. Stuttering Impact: a shared perception for parents and children? Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2020;72(6):478-86. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1159/000504221. PMid:31821996.
2. St. Louis KO, Węsierska K, Przepiórka A, Błachnio A, Beucher C, Abdalla F, et al. Success in changing stuttering attitudes: a retrospective analysis of 29 intervention studies. J Commun Disord. 2019;84:105972. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.105972. PMid:32114184.
3. Silva LK, Martins-Reis VO, Maciel TM, Ribeiro JK, Souza MA, Chaves FG. Stuttering at school: the effect of a teacher training program on stuttering. CoDAS. 2016;28(3):261-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317- 1782/20162015158. PMid:27383227.
4. Choi D, Conture EG, Walden TA, Jones RM, Kim H. Emotional diathesis, emotional stress, and childhood stuttering. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2016;59(4):616-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-14-0357. PMid:27327187.
5. Iverach L, Jones M, McLellan LF, Lyneham HJ, Menzies RG, Onslow M, et al. Prevalence of anxiety disorders among children who stutter. J Fluency Disord. 2016;49:13-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2016.07.002. PMid:27638189.
6. Romano N, Bellezzo JF, Chun RYS. Stuttering impacts on activities and participation of teenagers and adults. Distúrb Comun. 2018;30(3):510-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/2176-2724.2018v30i3p-510-521.
7. Giorgetti MP, Oliveira CMC, Giacheti CM. Behavioral and social competency profiles of stutterers. CoDAS. 2015;27(1):44-50. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/2317-1782/20152013065. PMid:25885196.
8. Fiorin M, Ugarte CV, Capellini SA, Oliveira CMC. Oral reading and spontaneous speech fluency of students: comparative study between stutterers and non-stutterers. Rev CEFAC. 2015;17(1):151-8. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/1982-021620152014.
9. Costa JB, Ritto AP, Juste FS, Andrade CRF. Comparison between the speech performance of fluent speakers and individuals who stutter. CoDAS. 2017;29(2):e20160136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20172016136. PMid:28327784.
10. Buzzeti PBMM, Fiorin M, Martinelli NL, Cardoso ACV, Oliveira CMC. Comparison of reading of school-age children who stutter in two listening situations: usual and delayed. Rev CEFAC. 2016;18(1):67-73. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/1982-0216201618114015.
11. Coelho CLG, Correa J. Reading comprehension: cognitive abilities and types of text. PSICO. 2017;48(1):40-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.15448/1980- 8623.2017.1.23417.
12. Martins MA, Capellini SA. Relation between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension. CoDAS. 2019;31(1):e20170244. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/2317-1782/20182018244. PMid:30810631.
13. Santos AJ, Pacheco V. Fluency and reading comprehension at different levels of schooling. Confluência. 2017;52(1):232-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.18364/ rc.v1i52.172.
14. Cunha VLO, Capellini SA. PROCOMLE: Protocolo de Avaliação da Compreensão Leitora. Ribeirão Preto: Book Toy Editorial; 2014. Pinto et al. CoDAS 2021;33(5):e20200059 DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20202020059 7/7
15. Clemens NH, Lee K, Henri M, Simmons LE, Kwok OM, Al Otaiba S. Growth on sublexical fluency progress monitoring measures in early kindergarten and relations to word reading acquisition. J Sch Psychol. 2020;79:43-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.01.003. PMid:32389248.
16. O’Connor RE. Phoneme awareness and the alphabetic principle. In: O’Connor RE, Vadasy PE, editors. Handbook of reading interventions. New York: Guilford; 2011. p. 9-26.
17. Uvo MFC, Germano GD, Capellini SA. Performance of students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in metalinguistic skills, reading and reading comprehension. Rev CEFAC. 2017;19(1):7-19. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/1982-0216201719115815.
18. Navas ALGP, Pinto JCBR, Dellisa PRR. Improvements in the knowledge of the reading fluency processing: from word to text. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2009;14(4):553-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-80342009000400021.
19. Riley GD. Stuttering severity instrument for children and Adults. Austin: Pro Ed; 1994.
20. Pinto JCBR, Schiefer AM, Ávila CRB. Disfluencies and speech rate in spontaneous production and in oral reading in people who stutter and who do not stutter. Audiol Commun Res. 2013;18(2):63-70. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/S2317-64312013000200003.
21. Yairi E, Ambrose NG. Early childhood stuttering I: persistency and recovery rates. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999;42(5):1097-112. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4205.1097. PMid:10515508.
22. Tumanova V, Zebrowski PM, Goodman SS, Arenas RM. Motor practice effects and sensorimotor integration in adults who stutter: evidence from visuomotor tracking performance. J Fluency Disord. 2015;45:52-72. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2015.04.001. PMid:25990027.
23. Fuchs LS, Fuchs D, Hosp MK, Jenkins JR. Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: a theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Sci Stud Read. 2001;5(3):239-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ S1532799XSSR0503_3.
24. Picoloto LA, Oliveira CMC. Study of words repetitions in adults with or without stuttering. Distúrb Comun. 2016;28(1):3-13.
25. Erdemir A, Walden TA, Jefferson CM, Choi D, Jones RM. The effect of emotion on articulation rate in persistence and recovery of childhood stuttering. J Fluency Disord. 2018;56:1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jfludis.2017.11.003. PMid:29443691.
26. Cardoso-Martins C, Navas AL. The role of word reading fluency in the development of reading comprehension: a longitudinal study. Educ Rev. 2016;(62):17-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-4060.48307.
27. Colombo RC, Cárnio MS. Reading comprehension and receptive vocabulary in Elementary School students with typical development. CoDAS. 2018;30(4):e201700145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20182017145. PMid:30043898.
28. Tobia V, Bonifacci P. The simple view of reading in a transparent orthography: the stronger role of oral comprehension. Read Writ. 2015;28(7):939-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9556-1.
29. Fernandes S, Querido L, Verhaeghe A, Marques C, Araújo L. Reading development in European Portuguese: relationships between oral reading fluency, vocabulary and reading comprehension. Read Writ. 2017;30(9):1987- 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9763-z.
30. Boyle MP. Relationships between psychosocial factors and quality of life for adults who stutter. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015;24(1):1-12. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1044/2014_AJSLP-14-0089. PMid:25410098.
Submitted date:
01/03/2020
Accepted date:
02/10/2020
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email