Journal of Communication Disorders

36 (2003) 427–448

Co-occurring disorders in children who stutter

Gordon W. Blood*, Victor J. Ridenour Jr.,
Constance Dean Qualls, Carol Scheffner Hammer
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 110 Moore Building,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
Received 26 July 2002; received in revised form 10 March 2003; accepted 10 March 2003

Abstract

This study used a mail survey to determine the (a) percentage of children who stutter
with co-occurring non-speech disorders, speech disorders, and language disorders, and
(b) frequency, length of sessions, and type of treatment services provided for children who
stutter with co-occurring disorders. Respondents from a nationwide sample included 1184
speech–language pathologists (SLPs). Of the 2628 children who stuttered, 62.8% had other co-
occurring speech disorders, language disorders, or non-speech–language disorders. Articula-
tion disorders (33.5%) and phonology disorders (12.7%) were the most frequently reported co-
occurring speech disorders. Only 34.3% of the children who stuttered had co-occurring non-
speech–language disorders. Of those children with co-occurring non-speech–language dis-
orders, learning disabilities (15.2%), literacy disorders (8.2%), and attention deficit disorders
(ADD) (5.9%) were the most frequently reported. Chi-square analyses revealed that males
were more likely to exhibit co-occurring speech disorders than females, especially articulation
and phonology. Co-occurring non-speech–language disorderswere also significantly higher in
males than females. Treatment decisions by SLPs are also discussed.
Learning outcomes: As a result of this activity, the participant should: (1) have a better
understanding of the co-occurring speech disorders, language disorders, and non-speech
disorders in children who stutter; (2) identify the speech disorders, language disorders, and
non-speech disorders with the highest frequency of occurrence in children who stutter; and
(3) be aware of the subgroups of children with co-occurring disorders and their potential
impact on assessment and treatment.
# 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Co-occurring disorders; School-age children; Stuttering; Treatment

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1-814-865-3177; fax: þ1-814-863-3759.
E-mail address: f2x@psu.edu (G.W. Blood).

0021-9924/$ – see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00023-6
428 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448

1. Introduction

Clinicians and researchers working with individuals who stutter are all too aware
of the fact that co-occurring speech and language disorders often complicate
problem conceptualization, participant selection, methodological concerns, and
therapy planning (Blood & Seider, 1981; Bloodstein, 1995; Conture, 2001;
Conture, Louko, & Edwards, 1993; Nippold, 1990; Shapiro, 1999; St. Louis,
Ruscello, & Lundeen, 1992). Studies examining co-occurring stuttering and other
speech, language, and non-speech and language disorders have attempted to clarify
the nature of stuttering in children and adults, the type and frequency of co-
occurring speech, language and non-speech–language disorders, and provide
support for reported subgroups in the heterogeneous population of individuals
who stutter (Conture, 2001; Nippold, 1990; Schwartz & Conture, 1988; Watkins &
Yairi, 1997; Yairi, 1990; Yairi & Ambrose, 1992, 1999).
Recently, Arndt and Healey (2001) conducted a study to determine the number
of children who stuttered with co-occurring language disorders and phonological
disorders. They concluded, based on the survey data from 241 speech–language
pathologists (SLPs) from 10 states in the United States, that 56% of the 467
children who stuttered had verified fluency disorders only, while 44% (205) had
verified fluency and concomitant phonological and/or language disorders. They
also obtained information about treatment decisions for children who stutter with
co-occurring language and phonological disorders. According to the authors, the
majority of SLPs reported using a ‘‘blended treatment’’ approach for these co-
occurring disorders, which was defined as treating both disorders simultaneously
within the therapy program. Their results provide important additional informa-
tion about the relationships among fluency, language, and phonology disorders
and SLPs’ treatment choices.
The presence of co-occurring non-speech disorders such as those affecting
learning, attention, reading and auditory processing may also influence decisions
about treatment hierarchies for children who stutter (Conture, 2001; Manning,
2002). A number of older studies have reported on the frequency of these co-
occurring non-speech–language disorders, but few studies have conducted sys-
tematic investigations in school-age children who stutter. For example, Heltman
and Peacher (1943) reported that of the 102 children with spastic paralysis that
they examined, 3.9% exhibited stuttering disorders. Similarly, Anderson, Hood,
and Sellers (1988) reported the presence of subtle central auditory processing
disorders (CAPD) in children who stutter. Nippold and Schwarz (1990) reported
conflicting findings in a review of the literature on the frequency of co-occurring
reading disorders in children who stutter. However, the frequency of occurrence,
the number and type of disorders, and the treatment choices for children with
co-occurring non-speech–language disorders has not been studied in a nation-
wide sample. Determining the frequency of occurrence of disorders in children
who stutter could enhance our information about subgroups in children who
stutter.
 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448 429

The recent Arndt and Healey (2001) study was an important first step in
examining in a systematic manner co-occurring disorders of school-age children
who stutter. Their data provide meaningful information for clinicians because
children with fluency disorders and co-occurring phonology and/or language
disorders may require different assessment and/or treatment programs than
children with only a fluency disorder. The purpose of this study was to expand
on earlier investigations about co-occurring disorders in children who stutter and
specifically elaborate on the important contributions of the Arndt and Healey
(2001) study. This type of research is important for enhancing our understanding
about subgroups of children who stutter and the need to acknowledge/appreciate
individual differences in children who stutter (Nippold, 1990; Schwartz &
Conture, 1988; Watkins & Yairi, 1997; Yairi, 1990). Controversy still exists
about the conclusions drawn from data about co-occurring disorders in children
who stutter. For example, Conture (2001) concluded that in the last few decades
we have learned that the ‘‘prevalence of phonological concerns in the population
of children who stutter is greater than in the population of children who don’t
stutter’’ (p. 156). However, Nippold (2002) in her review of 15 studies examining
the relationship between phonology and stuttering in children cautioned that
‘‘empirical evidence of an interaction (between stuttering and phonology)
remains elusive’’ (p. 106). Such contrasting interpretations of the research
demonstrate the need for studies to clarify the relationship between co-occurring
disorders and stuttering.
First, we decided to use a nationwide sampling procedure to ensure large
geographic representation. The Arndt and Healey (2001) study was restricted to
10 states which shared similar definitions of ‘‘verifiable fluency disorders.’’
Second, we requested data only on speech, language, and non-speech–
language disorders that could be documented through the students’ case
histories, school files, information shared by parents, teachers, members of
collaborative teams, or current diagnostic terms used to describe the child. The
Arndt and Healey (2001) study supplied respondents with state verification/
eligibility criteria. In the discussion section of the Arndt and Healey study they
stated that it ‘‘is difficult to know whether respondents accurately interpreted
and followed the verification criteria provided’’ (p. 77). Their study addressed
co-occurring non-speech–language disorders in children who stutter in an
interesting manner. They asked respondents to ‘‘provide information . . . of
students who were verified as having a fluency disorder and were suspected
of having a concomitant disorder, but did not meet their state’s verification
criteria . . .. A suspected concomitant disorder was defined as one that was
thought to exist but did not meet state verification standards’’ (p. 72). They
reported that SLPs identified 109 children with ‘‘suspected concomitant dis-
orders’’ including phonology, language, and non-speech–language disorders
(voice, learning disorders, reading disorders, emotional disturbances, and
attention deficit with hyperactivity disorders). Although these instructions
provided some guidance, they could have resulted in an overestimate of the
430 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448

frequency of co-occurring disorders or may have been confusing for SLPs who
tried to interpret what disorders should be included in a category of ‘‘suspected
concomitant disorders.’’ In contrast, the SLPs surveyed in the present study
were requested to provide information only on co-occurring disorders if they
knew they could provide evidence (if requested). We explained that the rationale
for this procedure was that we did not want to over-represent the students’
disorders by speculation, ‘‘clinical hunches,’’ or even the best intuitive guesses
(Appendix B).
Third, we provided a detailed and more complete list of potential co-occurring
speech disorders, language disorders, and non-speech–language disorders based
on practicing SLPs’ feedback. We randomly sampled 35 SLPs prior to the survey
about the types of co-occurring disorders of children on their caseloads who
stutter. As a result, we included 18 categories including specific syndromes (e.g.,
Tourette’s) and specific disorders (e.g., sensory integration). We also subdivided
language disorders into receptive and expressive problem categories, and further
subdivided these categories into syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic disorders. We
also provided a specific language impairment category. Similarly, instead of
examining primarily phonology disorders, we included categories for other
speech disorders including: articulation, voice, cluttering, dysphagia, and English
as a second language.
Finally, one of the unquestionable facts about stuttering is the higher pre-
valence among males than females. The generally accepted ratio is 3 males:1
female (Bloodstein, 1995; Van Riper, 1982). Few studies have examined the
gender factor when reporting on co-occurring disorders. It is possible that males
may demonstrate different types and frequencies of co-occurring disorders than
females. The Arndt and Healey (2001) study did not comment on the gender of the
children in their methodology or results.
Therefore, we specifically wanted to determine (a) the percentage and fre-
quencies of male and female children who stutter with co-occurring speech
disorders, language disorders and non-speech–language disorders, and (b) the
frequency (number of therapy sessions), length of sessions (in minutes), and type
(group vs. individual) of treatment services provided to children with co-occur-
ring disorders.

2. Method

2.1. Respondents

Two thousand practicing SLPs employed in the public schools in the

United States were randomly selected from the American Speech–Lan-
guage–Hearing Association’s (ASHA) national list of members. Computer-
generated address labels were obtained for a fee from ASHA. The sample
surveyed included SLPs from each state in the country, with the number of
 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448 431

participants from each state being based on the population of the state. This
increased the likelihood of having representation from all geographic locations
and states.

2.2. Survey

A cover letter, an informed consent form, and a survey containing demographic

items and practice-based items about SLPs and demographic information about
children who stutter currently in their schools were mailed to the potential
participants’ school addresses. The first part of the survey contained questions
about the SLPs, including: age, gender, ethnicity, education, and geographic work
location. It also included practice-based items, including: caseload size, current
number of children who stutter on their caseloads, number of years working as an
SLP, and number of years at current position.
The second part of the survey required SLPs to complete individual forms for
each child who stuttered in the schools. They were asked to provide information
ONLY on the children if they knew it could be documented through the children’s
case histories, files, information shared by parents, teachers, members of colla-
borative teams, or current diagnostic terms used to describe the child. The specific
directions are included in Appendix B. Although this a priori methodological
decision might have decreased the number of children who stutter identified with
co-occurring disorders, we believe the decision provided a more accurate and
defensible (albeit conservative) estimate of the frequency of these disorders in
children who stutter.
SLPs were requested to complete separate survey sheets for each child. These
included demographic information on age, gender, ethnicity, current grade level,
stuttering severity, onset of stuttering (if known), and family history of stuttering
(if known). They were also requested to ‘‘check’’ the category(ies) of the co-
occurring problem(s) they could document.
The first list of disorders included a checkbox for no co-occurring speech
disorders, followed by co-occurring articulation, phonology, voice, dysphagia,
cluttering, and other disorders. A space was also provided for additional
disorders. The second list for expressive language disorders included a check-
box for no co-occurring expressive language disorders, followed by co-occur-
ring expressive language disorders in vocabulary/semantics, syntactic, and
pragmatics. A third list was provided for receptive language disorders, includ-
ing a checkbox for no co-occurring receptive language disorders followed by
co-occurring receptive language disorders in vocabulary/semantics, syntactic,
and pragmatics.
Finally, SLPs were requested to check the appropriate box from the fourth list
for co-occurring non-speech–language disorders. The list began with a checkbox
for no additional non-speech–language disorders followed by a list of 18 co-
occurring non-speech–language disorders. These included: learning disabilities,
literacy disorders including reading, writing, and spelling disorders, central
432 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448

auditory processing disorders, hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, Down’s

syndrome, attention deficit disorder, behavioral disorders, blindness, neuropsy-
chological disorders, autism, traumatic brain injury, Tourette’s syndrome, sensory
integration disorders, other neurological disorders including epilepsy, congenital
physical conditions including cleft lip and/or palate, acquired physical conditions
including diabetes, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorders, and
hormonal imbalances. Additional space was provided for other co-occurring
non-speech–language disorders not listed.
A final set of questions about treatment choices (if appropriate for the co-
occurring problem) was also included. These consisted of: (a) group versus
individual treatment sessions for the co-occurring disorders; (b) the number of
times and approximate number of minutes per session seen for stuttering therapy;
and (c) number of times and approximate number of minutes per session seen for
co-occurring disorders. Additional space was provided for comments, other
treatments, and any additional information.
To further validate the survey, a preliminary draft was reviewed by 35
randomly selected SLPs working in the schools. Their comments on wording,
item choices and placements, and additional selections for non-speech–language
disorders (for example, Tourette’s syndrome, sensory integration, and autism)
were reviewed and included in the final version.

2.3. Procedures

The final version of the survey was distributed. Follow-up mailings were sent at
2-week (post-card reminders), 4-, and 8-week (mailing of another copy of the
survey) intervals following the initial mailing. This resulted in 1242 responses
from SLPs (return rate of 62.1%). Fifty-eight of the responses were deemed
unusable because of returned unopened surveys, change of address, participants
no longer employed in schools, or failure to complete demographic and/or
questionnaire data. This produced a response from 1184 SLPs representing a
59.2% response rate for the sample. This is an acceptable response rate for survey
research (Babbie, 1990; Fink, 1995). Survey results were entered into the data
programs and checked for accuracy by two independent judges who were not
authors of the study.

2.4. Statistical analyses

First, it should be noted that we did not employ a control group in this study.
However, we did make comparisons with reported prevalence estimates of the co-
occurring disorders in the general population. Descriptive data analyses were
employed. Responses were analyzed according to the frequency of occurrence
and converted percentages. The chi-square test was conducted to analyze the
associations between the number of co-occurring disorders and the children’s
grade level and gender.
 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448 433

3. Results

3.1. SLP participant characteristics

The majority of the SLPs were female (95.4%) and European-American

(95.8%), with a mean age of 43.8 years. Ninety-nine percent (1172) indicated that
they had obtained a master’s degree. SLPs reported working a mean of 19.1 years
and working in their current positions a mean of 10.1 years. Participants included
SLPs working in 46 states. One hundred and seventy-eight (15.1%) of the
respondents reported working in rural areas, while 40.7% (483) reported working
in suburban areas and the remaining 44.2% (523) reported working in urban areas
(Table 1). SLPs reported average caseload sizes of 59.8 children. The mean number
of children who stuttered on all SLPs’ caseloads (1184) was 2.22 children. However,
107 (9%) of these participants reported providing no services to children who stutter
at the present time. Of the 1077 remaining SLPs providing services to children who
stutter, the mean number of children on their caseloads was 2.44 children.

3.2. Children who stutter characteristics

Data were reported on 2628 children who stutter and who were currently
receiving treatment on the caseloads of the SLPs. According to Table 2, the majority
of the children who stuttered were male (78.4%), European-Americans (59.8%),
with a mean age of 9.4 years. Children were unevenly distributed among grade
levels with the largest number of children in grades 1–3 (36.2%) and the smallest
number of children in the 9th through 12th grades (8%). SLPs reported that they
used both formal and informal tests for diagnosing stuttering. Nineteen percent of
the SLPs used only formal or commercially available tests. Some of these included:
Protocol for Differentiating the Incipient Stutterer (Pindzola & White, 1986), Scale
for Rating the Severity of Stuttering (Williams, Darley, & Spriestersbach, 1978),
Stuttering Severity Instrument (Riley, 1994), Cooper Personalized Fluency Control
Therapy, Revised (Cooper & Cooper, 1985), Systematic Fluency Training for
Young Children (Shine, 1980), S-Scale (Erickson, 1969), etc. Thirty-three percent
reported using only informal measures for assessment. These included measures
such as: word and/or syllable counts, speaking rate, amount and types of disfluency,
duration of the moments of stuttering, physical concomitants, level of awareness,
case history, client motivation, etc. The majority of SLPs (56%) reported using both
formal and informal measurements.

3.3. Co-occurring speech, language and non-speech–language disorders

Of the 2628 children who stutter, 62.8% (1650) had at least one co-occurring
speech disorder, language disorder, or non-speech–language disorder. These
children had a total of 3567 co-occurring speech, language, and non-speech–
language disorders. Each child who stuttered with co-occurring disorders had a
434 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448

Table 1
Demographic data for 1184 SLPs working in public school settings

Variable Public school SLPs

Percent Number
Gender
Female 95.4 1130
Male 4.6 54
Ethnicity
European-American 95.8 1134
African-American 1.9 23
Hispanic-American 1.3 15
Asian-American 1.0 12
Educational level
Master’s degree or higher 99.4 1177
Bachelor’s degree 0.06 7
Geographic location (based on population)
Rural <5000 residents 15.0 178
Suburban >5000 to <100,000 residents 40.8 483
Urban >100,000 residents 44.2 523
Number of children who stutter on SLPs’ caseloads
No children who stutter 9.0 107
One child who stutters 23.3 276
Two children who stutter 40.1 475
Three children who stutter 11.5 136
Four children who stutter 6.8 81
Five children who stutter 4.6 54
Six children who stutter 1.4 17
Seven or more children who stutter 2.3 27
Eight, 9, or 10 children who stutter <1.0 11
Years in profession
Mean 19.1
Range 1–34
Years at current position
Mean 10.1
Range 1–21
Age in years
Mean 43.8
Range 24–64
Caseload size (children)
Mean 59.8
Range 13–112
Caseload size (children who stutter)
Mean 2.2
Range 0–10
 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448 435

Table 2
Demographic data for 2628 children who stutter

Variable Children who stutter

Percent Number
Gender
Male 78.4 2060
Female 21.6 568
Ethnicity
European-American 59.8 1572
African-American 17.9 470
Hispanic-American 12.4 326
Asian-American 6.5 171
Other (Native American, etc.) 3.4 89
Grade level
Kindergarten through 1st grade 15.3 401
2nd to 3rd grade 26.2 690
4th to 5th grade 31.6 830
6th to 8th grade 18.9 497
9th to 12th grade 8.0 210
Age in years
Mean 9.4
Range 5–18
Age at diagnosis
Mean 3.4
Range 2–8

mean of 2.16 disorders. Three percent of the students presented with more than six
co-occurring disorders as noted in Table 3. The range of co-occurring disorders
was 0–10 for all students.
Of the six speech disorders included in this study, articulation disorders were
the most common with a frequency of 33.5%. The next most frequent speech
disorders were phonological disorders (12.7%). The least common of all co-
occurring speech disorders was dysphagia (0.5%).
Among co-occurring language disorders, both expressive semantic (13.5%)
and receptive semantic (12.1%) were the most frequently occurring (Table 4).
With specific reference to non-speech–language disorders, 34.5% of children
reported co-occurring disorders. As detailed in Table 5, the most frequently co-
occurring non-speech–language disorders were learning disabilities (11.4%),
literacy disorders (8.2%), and attention deficit disorders (ADD) (5.9%). Five
non-speech–language disorders occurred with less than 5% frequency including:
central auditory processing disorders (3.1%), neuropsychological disorders
(2.9%), behavioral disorders (2.4%), sensory integration (2.1%) and acquired
physical conditions (1.3%). The remaining 10 non-speech–language disorders
occurred with less than 1% frequency and can be reviewed in Table 6.
436 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448

Table 3
Frequency of co-occurring speech, language, and non-speech–language problems in the 2628
children who stutter

Frequency of co-occurring speech, language, and Percent Number

non-speech–language problems

Total students with no other co-occurring problems 37.2 978

Total students with co-occurring problems 62.8 1650
Students with either one co-occurring speech, language or 18.4 483
non-speech–language problem
Students with either two co-occurring speech, language or 28.7 754
non-speech–language problems
Students with either three co-occurring speech, language or 3.5 92
non-speech–language problems
Students with either four co-occurring speech, language or 7.1 187
non-speech–language problems
Students with either five co-occurring speech, language or 1.2 32
non-speech–language problems
Students with either six or more co-occurring speech, 3.9 102
language or non-speech–language problems

Table 4
Frequency and percentage of co-occurring speech disorders in children who stutter

Co-occurring speech disorders Total (N ¼ 2628) Male (N ¼ 2060) Female (N ¼ 568)

N % N % N %

Articulationa 880 33.5 712 34.5 168 29.5

Phonologya 336 12.7 283 13.7 53 9.3
English as second language 96 3.6 77 3.7 19 3.3
Voice 55 2.1 44 2.1 11 1.9
Cluttering 18 0.7 15 0.5 3 0.5
Dysphagia 13 0.5 11 0.5 2 0.3
No co-occurring speech disordersa 1230 46.8 918 44.5 312 54.9
Co-occurring expressive language
Semantic 354 13.5 275 13.3 79 13.9
Syntactic 258 9.9 201 9.8 57 10.0
Pragmatic 329 12.5 261 12.7 68 12.0
Co-occurring receptive language
Semantic 318 12.1 255 12.4 63 11.1
Syntactic 269 10.2 218 10.5 51 9.0
Pragmatic 239 9.1 184 8.9 55 9.7
Specific language impairment 162 6.2 123 5.9 39 6.8
No co-occurring language disorders 699 26.5 535 25.9 164 28.8
Does not total 100% because students may have more than one additional speech and language
disorder.
a
Male and female group means are significantly different at P < 0:01.
 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448 437

Table 5
Co-occurring non-speech–language disorders reported with greater frequency than 1% frequency in
2628 children who stutter

Co-occurring non-speech–language disorders Total Male Female

(N ¼ 2628) (N ¼ 2060) (N ¼ 568)

N % N % N %

Learning disabilities 299 11.4 252 12.2 47 8.3a

Literacy disorders 215 8.2 188 9.1 27 4.8a
Attention deficit disorder 155 5.9 122 5.9 33 5.8
Central auditory processing disorders 101 3.8 82 4.0 19 3.3
Neuropsychological disorders 76 2.9 61 3.0 15 2.6
Behavioral disorders 63 2.4 51 2.5 12 2.1
Sensory integration 55 2.1 45 2.2 10 1.7
Acquired physical conditions including diabetes, 35 1.3 22 1.1 13 2.3
asthma, or chronic obstructive pulmonary
disorders
No additional co-occurring non-speech–language 1727 65.7 1325 64.3 402 70.8
a
disorders
Does not total 100% because students may have more than one additional speech and language
disorder.
a
Male and female group means are significantly different at P < 0:01.

3.4. Analysis related to children’s gender and grade level

The final sample consisted of 2060 males and 568 females who stuttered. Table 4
shows the percentage and frequency of co-occurring speech disorders by gender.
Among those children who stutter with co-occurring speech disorders, males were
significantly more affected than females (w2 ¼ 76:2; d:f: ¼ 1; P < 0:001). Males
had higher percentages than females on all of the six speech disorders categories.
However, significant differences between males and females were found only for

Table 6
Co-occurring non-speech–language disorders reported with less than 1% frequency in 2628 children
who stutter

Non-speech–language disorders Percent Number

of children of children

Autism 0.8 23
Other neurological disorders including epilepsy 0.8 21
Mental retardation 0.7 18
Hearing impairments 0.6 17
Congenital physical conditions including cleft lip and/or palate 0.6 17
Traumatic brain injury 0.6 15
Hormonal imbalances 0.6 15
Emotional disorders (added to the list by SLPs) 0.5 13
Tourette’s syndrome 0.5 12
Cerebral palsy 0.4 10
438 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448

Table 7
SLPs’ responses to treatment decisions for children who stutter with co-occurring speech disorders,
language disorders, and non-speech–language disorders

Percent Number
of children of children

1. Is the child receiving treatment for his/her stuttering?

Yes 96 1584
No 4 66

2. Is the child being seen at this time for ONLY his/her stuttering problem?
Yes 12.6 200
No 87.4 1384

3. If the student is receiving treatment for stuttering and the additional disorders(s) during the same
treatment session
a. How many times a week does the child receive treatment?
Once a week 17.7 280
Twice a week 64.5 1022
Three times a week 14.5 231
More than three times a week 3.2 51
b. How many minutes does the treatment session last?
10 min 2.0 32
20 min 45.5 720
25 min 36.9 586
30 min 14.3 227
More than 45 min 1.2 19
c. How many minutes per session, on average, focus on stuttering?
5 min 2.0 32
10 min 69.6 1103
15 min 14.7 232
20 min 7.0 111
25 min 3.0 48
More than 30 min 3.7 58

4. If the child is receiving services for both stuttering and co-occurring disorders, is she/he receiving
a. Separate, individual sessions for both stuttering and 5.7 91
co-occurring disorders
b. Separate, group sessions for both stuttering and 2.7 43
co-occurring disorders
c. Individual sessions for stuttering; group sessions for 11.4 181
co-occurring disorders
d. Group sessions for stuttering; individual sessions for 8.2 130
co-occurring disorders
e. Both stuttering and co-occurring disorders are treated 70.2 1112
during the same individual session
f. Both stuttering and co-occurring disorders are treated 1.7 27
during the same group session
 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448 439

articulation disorders (w2 ¼ 37:4; d:f: ¼ 1; P < 0:01) and phonology disorders
(w2 ¼ 17:5; d:f: ¼ 1; P < 0:01). Among co-occurring language disorders, both
expressive semantic (13.5%) and receptive semantic (12.1%) were the most
frequently occurring. A similar number of males and females were affected by
co-occurring language disorders. Results of the analysis revealed no significant
differences between groups (w2 ¼ 1:2; d:f: ¼ 1; ns). When considering the non-
speech–language disorders, 8 of the 18 disorders were reported to occur with greater
than 1% frequency (Table 5). Overall, males were significantly more affected than
females (w2 ¼ 51:8; d:f: ¼ 1; P < 0:001). Significant gender differences were
found for learning disabilities (w2 ¼ 47:4; d:f: ¼ 1; P < 0:01) and literacy dis-
orders (w2 ¼ 29:8; d:f: ¼ 1; P < 0:01). Table 6 shows that the remaining 10
disorders were reported with less than 1% frequency.
To determine if the number of co-occurring disorders was related to grade
level, children were placed into one of five age groups: kindergarten through 1st
grade; 2nd to 3rd grade; 4th to 5th grade; 6th to 8th grade; and 9th to 12th grade. A
5 (grade level)  3 disorders (speech disorders, language disorders, non-speech–
language disorders) chi-square analysis revealed no significant relationships
between the number of co-occurring disorders and grade level (w2 ¼ 1:4;
d:f: ¼ 8; P ¼ 1:15).

3.5. Treatment decisions by SLPs for children receiving treatment

SLPs were asked a series of questions about treatment decisions. Ninety-six

percent of the children who stuttered with co-occurring disorders were receiving
treatment for their fluency disorders. SLPs reported that 4% of the children were
not receiving stuttering services at the current time for three primary reasons.
These included: (a) co-occurring disorders were evaluated as more important at
the current time, (b) the child/IEP team had elected not to work on stuttering at the
current time, or (c) treatment schedules had been selected so that stuttering would
be treated after the severity of one or more of the co-occurring problem(s) was
reduced. The frequency and percentage of the SLPs’ responses are shown in
Table 7. The range of treatment durations was 10 min once a week (children in
transfer phases of treatment) to 60 min twice a week (children on block sche-
dules). Children who stutter with co-occurring disorders received a mean of
23.4 min of treatment (S:D: ¼ 4:8 min) 2.04 times a week (S:D: ¼ 0:71) for a
total of 47.7 min a week. SLPs reported that a mean of 12.6 min (S:D: ¼ 5:5 min),
more than half the session, ‘‘focused on stuttering’’ when there were co-occurring
disorders reported.

4. Discussion

The results of this study present additional evidence that a majority of children
who stutter have at least one co-occurring speech, language, or non-speech–
440 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448

language problem. The high percentage of problems that were confirmed would
indicate that SLPs need to be aware of and include in their evaluations the type
and number of co-occurring disorders in children who stutter. According to the
23rd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (2001) more than one-third of all students who receive
special education and/or related services have co-occurring disabilities. The
largest percentage (49%) of children with co-occurring disabilities are those
with speech–language disabilities. Our results show that children who stutter
demonstrate a higher percentage (62.8%) of co-occurring disorders than children
with other speech–language disorders.
Guitar (1998) has suggested the co-occurring disorders in children who stutter
may have several explanations. For example, some researchers propose that these
additional disorders complicate the communication process and children begin to
believe that communication is demanding and difficult resulting in anticipatory
struggle (Bloodstein, 1995) or greater demands than the children’s current
capacities (Starkweather, Gottwald, & Halfond, 1990). Some motor theories
of stuttering would also suggest that additional speech and language processing
errors could not only complicate the emergence of fluency but actually contribute
to the development of stuttering (Bloodstein, 1995; Conture, 2001; Guitar, 1998;
Shapiro, 1999). Co-occurring disorders may contribute to reduced capacities for
speech motor control and language formulation necessary for fluent speech.
Ludlow (1999) discussing the neurobiology of stuttering suggests that the co-
occurrence of stuttering and other speech–language disorders may reveal a speech
encoding and language production system that is more fragile and susceptible to
disruption. The high percentage of children with co-occurring speech disorders
found in this study may provide additional support for her hypotheses. Guitar
(1998) also suggests that the children with co-occurring speech disorders and
stuttering may be displaying a single disorder (with multiple facets) associated
with subtle brain dysfunctions or genetically linked traits.
We found that articulation and phonology disorders are the highest co-occurring
disorders for children who stutter. Estimates of the incidence of articulation
disorders in the school-age population vary from 2 to 6% (Beitchman, Nair,
Clegg, & Patel, 1986; Conture, 2001; Gierut, 1998). We used these percentages
from the general school-age population for comparisons to the children who stutter
in this study. With more than 33% of the children who stutter reporting articulation
disorders and 12% reporting phonology disorders, the groups of children with
these disorders are higher than would be expected in the general population. Our
findings support those reported in other studies (Arndt & Healey, 2001; Blood &
Seider, 1981; Louko, Edwards, & Conture, 1999). For example Yaruss, LaSalle,
and Conture (1998) reported 37% of the children who stutter in their clinic had co-
occurring phonology disorders. SLPs should be aware of the groups of children
who exhibit these co-occurring disorders. It is likely that they will be present on
their caseloads and some research suggests that specific treatment programs are
beneficial (Bernstein Ratner, 1995; Louko et al., 1999; Melnick & Conture, 2000;
 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448 441

Nippold, 2001; Paden & Yairi, 1996; Paden, Yairi, & Ambrose, 1999; Wolk, 1998;
Yaruss & Conture, 1996).
There were small groups of children with other co-occurring speech disorders.
The reported prevalence of voice disorders in school-age children varies from a low
of 4% in some rural areas to as high as 23%, and a generally accepted figure of 7%
(Boone & McFarlane, 1997; Wetmore, Muntz, & McGill, 2000). Although voice
disorders may co-occur in some children who stutter (2.1%), it is considerably less
than is typically reported in the general population. The frequency of occurrence of
ESL in school-age children who stutter (3.6%) was lower than the 6–7% estimate
reported in the school-age population (Kayser, 1995). Both cluttering and dysphagia
have no reliable prevalence rates reported in the school-age population for
comparisons purposes. However, groups of children with these co-occurring
cluttering and dysphagia disorders were very low, 0.7 and 0.5%, respectively.
Approximately 8–10% of all school-age children have language disorders or
delays (Fahey & Reid, 2000). In the area of expressive language disorders,
diagnosed semantic disorders had the highest frequency of occurrence. Children
who stutter may be attempting to avoid ‘‘feared words.’’ The Demands and
Capacities Model (Starkweather et al., 1990) suggests that heightened linguistic
demands in one area such as semantics and pragmatics may force the child to
compromise another area such as vocabulary and/or syntax. Co-occurring lan-
guage disorders in children who stutter may be showing the cumulative negative
effects of overloading complex motor and linguistic systems. Our results support
the fact that SLPs working with children who stutter might expect a greater
likelihood of co-occurring language disorders. As can be seen in Table 4, there
were no differences in percentages of co-occurring receptive and expressive
language disorders. The results of the present survey suggest that co-occurring
expressive and receptive language disorders support the notion that subgroups of
children who stutter experience linguistic difficulties (Nippold, 1990; Watkins &
Yairi, 1997; Watkins, Yairi, & Ambrose, 1999; Yairi, 1990). Our data also offer
support for Tetnowski’s (1998) suggestion of a fluency and linguistic subgroup in
stuttering. The frequency of these co-occurring language disorders would indicate
that complete and extensive language assessment of children who stutter is
warranted. Linguistic processing may play a role in stuttering as children are
expected to produce longer and more complex utterances. Further studies are
needed to determine which aspects of language impact children’s fluency and the
role of co-occurring disorders.
According to Shriberg, Tomblin, and McSweeney (1999), the prevalence of
specific language impairments (SLI) is approximately 8% in school-age children.
SLI was not a primary disorder co-occurring with stuttering in our study (6.1%).
Recent data by Boscolo, Bernstein Ratner, and Rescorla (2002) reported that
children with SLI were significantly more disfluent than their peers. Other studies
could examine the relationship between SLI and speech fluency, as well as the
possibility of a distinct subgroup of children with both SLI and stuttering
characteristics.
442 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448

The co-occurring non-speech–language disorders with the highest frequency

of occurrence were learning disabilities, literacy, and attention deficit disorders.
Our study found that percentages for learning disabilities (11.4%), literacy
disorders (8.2%) and attention deficit disorders (5.9%) were all higher than
reported in the general school-age population. Arndt and Healey (2001) reported
that 24% of the children in their study were ‘‘suspected’’ of having a co-occurring
learning disability and 14% were ‘‘suspected’’ of having a co-occurring reading
disability. Although our study found lower percentages for learning disabilities
and reading disorders, these were ‘‘known’’ disorders that could be ‘‘confirmed’’
and may explain the conflicting results. As mentioned above, more than 8% of the
children had co-occurring literacy disorders. Some studies have suggested that
children who stutter will not differ from their peers in reading ability and narrative
skills (Conture, 2001; Nippold & Schwarz, 1990). However, oral reading per-
formance in some children may be related to stuttering behaviors. Bosshardt and
Nandyal (1988) reported differences between oral and silent reading in children
who stutter. Conture (2001) cautions SLPs to be aware of these co-occurring
disorders, especially if reading material is used to assist in fluency treatment
activities. These subgroups of children need to be examined more systematically
to determine if treatment/assessment protocols may be changed to produce more
effective outcomes.
A small group of children (5.9%) presented attention deficit disorders. Riley
and Riley (1988) have discussed the relationship between attention deficit
disorders and recovery in children who stutter. The incidence of ADD is between
3 and 5% in the school-age population (Anastopoulos & Shelton, 2001). We found
a slightly higher percentage in children who stutter. Another small subgroup of
children (3.8%) presented central auditory processing disorders. Chermak and
Musiek (1997) state that no adequate prevalence data are currently available for
CAPD. A number of theories have suggested that stuttering may be caused and/or
maintained by subtle auditory disturbances (Andrews et al., 1983; Bonin, Ramig,
& Prescott, 1985; Dietrich, Barry, & Parker, 1995). Further examination of
subgroups of children with and without these co-occurring disorders may provide
important information to clinicians about successful treatment approaches and the
interrelationships among co-occurring disorders.
The mean number of children who stutter on all SLPs’ caseloads in this
nationwide survey was 2.2 children and identical to the number of children
reported by Arndt and Healey (2001) in their survey of 10 states. There were more
children in the 4th to 5th grade (31.6%) group than the 9th to 12th grade group
(8%), which was expected. As children progress through school, they become
successful at learning and using stuttering modification and/or fluency shaping
techniques and may require less treatment time. However, the number of co-
occurring disorders did not show a corresponding reduction over time. Children in
the early grades, middle school years, and high school showed similar percentages
of co-occurring disorders. It is possible that these children were successfully
treated for one problem and then a new or additional problem was diagnosed at a
 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448 443

later time. For example, a child who stutters may have presented with reading and
expressive language disorders in the 2nd grade and reached grade level perfor-
mance by the 5th grade. However, when the child transferred to middle school he
may have been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and a voice disorder. This
child would be reported as having two co-occurring disorders in the 2nd grade and
two co-occurring disorders in the 6th grade. Another less optimistic scenario is
that the child who stutters was diagnosed with two co-occurring disorders in the
3rd grade and these disorders had not been remediated by the 9th grade. Of course,
these are speculations because we did not ask SLPs how long the co-occurring
disorders had been treated.
Another interesting finding was related to gender differences. Males (56.5%)
were reported to have a significantly greater percentage of co-occurring speech
disorders than females (45.1%). SLPs reported that males had a significantly
greater number of co-occurring articulation and phonology disorders than
females. Similarly, males who stutter were more affected by non-speech–lan-
guage disorders, especially learning disabilities and literacy disorders. In contrast,
there were no significant differences between males and females for the language
categories. It may be that co-occurring or competing speech processing tasks
stress the physiological system to a greater extent in males than females. Further
research should include gender as an important variable which may influence
assessment and treatment in children with co-occurring disorders.
Finally, one of the most interesting findings was the data concerning the
amount of time spent in treatment for children who stutter with co-occurring
disorders. These children received a mean of approximately 23 min of treat-
ment, two times a week with a mean of approximately 12.6 min ‘‘focused on
stuttering.’’ That means that if the child who stuttered with co-occurring
disorders was seen in a typical public school setting for 36 weeks (not including
any time missed for diagnostic assessment at the beginning of the school year
and final reports at the end of the school year, holidays, illnesses, special events,
etc.), s/he would receive 925.3 min or 15.4 h of treatment for the entire year.
The remaining 10.8 min (two times a week) of treatment yields 793.2 min (or
13.2 h) of treatment for co-occurring disorders. Amazingly, school-based SLPs
are expected to treat children who stutter and expect changes in a school year
when they have approximately 15 h per year to work on the child’s stuttering
problem.
All of the above findings support the notion that children who stutter are more
likely to exhibit co-occurring speech, language, and non-speech–language dis-
orders. This study provides new information about the specific types of speech
and language disorders, and non-speech–language disorders. This study also
provides new information on the differences between males and females in the
frequency of co-occurring disorders. It appears that males are more likely to be
affected by co-occurring disorders than females. The data encourage SLPs to
continue to be aware of co-occurring disorders and how these disorders may
influence stuttering in school-age children. Finally, most SLPs are faced with
444 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448

treating approximately 2.2 children who stutter on their caseloads each year.
Based on the results of this survey, 6 of every 10 children who stutter will have
2.16 additional disorders. SLPs will continue to determine which disorders are
most urgent and decide how to best use the approximately 1 h a week (23 min, two
times a week) for treating stuttering and the co-occurring disorders. Researchers
should continue their efforts at determining optimal treatment programs for
children who stutter with co-occurring disorders.

Appendix A. Continuing education

1. Studies examining co-occurring stuttering and other speech, language, and

non-speech and language disorders have attempted to clarify
(a) the nature of stuttering in children and adults
(b) the type of co-occurring speech, language and non-speech–language
disorders
(c) the frequency of co-occurring speech, language and non-speech–
language disorders
(d) provide additional support for reported subgroups
(e) all of the above
2. The current study differed from the Arndt and Healey (2001) study in that
(a) it used a nationwide sampling procedure to ensure large geographic
representation
(b) it requested data only on speech, language, and non-speech–language
disorders that could be documented through the students’ case
histories, school files, information shared by parents, teachers,
members of collaborative teams, or current diagnostic terms used to
describe the child
(c) it provided a detailed and more complete list of potential co-occurring
speech disorders, language disorders, and non-speech–language
disorders based on practicing SLPs’ feedback
(d) it examined the gender variable
(e) all of the above
3. The results of this study suggest that
(a) articulation and phonology disorders are the highest co-occurring
disorders for children who stutter
(b) expressive and receptive language disorders are the highest co-
occurring disorders for children who stutter
(c) females have more co-occurring speech disorders than males
(d) articulation and phonology disorders in children who stutter are very
similar to the percentages reported in the general population of
school-age children
(e) none of the above
 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448 445

4. Based on the results of this study, SLPs

(a) should be aware of the large groups of children with co-occurring
voice, cluttering and dysphagia disorders on their caseloads
(b) work closely with the special education teachers because of the large
groups of children who stutter with severe cognitive, behavioral and
social disorders
(c) should be aware that children who exhibit co-occurring speech,
language and non-speech–language disorders will be present on their
caseloads
(d) do not need to complete extensive language assessment of children
who stutter because it is obvious that linguistic processing does not
play a role in stuttering
(e) all of the above
5. Which of the following is not true
(a) children who stutter received a mean of approximately 23 min of
treatment, two times a week
(b) learning disabilities, literacy disorders and attention deficit disorders
were the highest reported co-occurring non-speech–language dis-
orders
(c) Males were reported to have a significantly greater percentage of co-
occurring speech disorders than females
(d) The percentage of co-occurring disorders reported in school-age
children who stutter was less in the early grades (K-1; 2–3) and
significantly greater during the high school years
(e) The results of this study present additional evidence that a majority of
children who stutter have at least one co-occurring speech, language,
or non-speech–language problem

Appendix B. Instruction for completing the survey

We are asking that you provide information about students who stutter in your
schools. The students may be currently receiving treatment services or may not be
receiving services for some reasons. We ONLY want you to provide information
about their stuttering and co-occurring disorders that you could (you don’t have to
for this study) provide documentation or support from parental reports, colla-
borative team meetings, student reports, regular classroom teacher or special
education classroom teacher reports/meetings, medical diagnoses, etc. if someone
were to request it. We know that some children on your caseload or in your schools
‘‘might’’ have co-occurring disorders that are undiagnosed at the present time. We
are also aware that you might suspect some of the children have undiagnosed
disorders based on your years of clinical experience, but have not been diagnosed.
For this study we ONLY want you to complete information that you could
document, if requested. When we analyze the results, we do not want to over-
446 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448

represent the students’ disorders by speculation, ‘‘good clinical hunches,’’ or even

the best intuitive guesses, hence our request. Thanks in advance for understanding
and for helping us find out more about children who stutter.

References

Anastopoulos, A. D., & Shelton, T. L. (2001). Assessing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders.

New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Anderson, J. M., Hood, S. B., & Sellers, D. E. (1988). Central auditory processing abilities of
adolescent and preadolescent stuttering and nonstuttering children. Journal of Fluency Disorders,
13, 199–214.
Andrews, G., Craig, A., Feyer, A. - M., Hoddinott, S., Howie, P., & Neilson, M. (1983). Stuttering: A
review of research findings and theories circa 1982. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
48, 226–246.
Arndt, J., & Healey, E. C. (2001). Concomitant disorders in school-age children who stutter.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 68–78.
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Beitchman, J., Nair, R., Clegg, M., & Patel, P. (1986). Prevalence of speech and language disorders in
5-year-old kindergarten children in the Ottawa–Carleton region. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 51, 98–110.
Bernstein Ratner, N. (1995). Treating the child who stutters with concomitant language or
phonological impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 26, 180–186.
Blood, G. W., & Seider, R. (1981). The concomitant disorders of young stutterers. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Disorders, 46, 31–33.
Bloodstein, O. (1995). A handbook on stuttering (4th ed.). Chicago: National Easter Seal Society.
Bonin, B., Ramig, P., & Prescott, T. (1985). Performance differences between stuttering and
nonstuttering subjects on a sound fusion task. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 10, 291–300.
Boone, D. R., & McFarlane, S. C. (1997). The voice and voice therapy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Boscolo, B., Bernstein Ratner, N., & Rescorla, L. (2002). Fluency of school-aged children with a
history of specific expressive language impairment: An exploratory study. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 41–49.
Bosshardt, H. - G., & Nandyal, I. (1988). Reading rates of stutterers and nonstutterers during silent
and oral reading. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 13, 407–420.
Chermak, G. D., & Musiek, F. E. (1997). Central auditory processing disorders: New perspectives.
San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing.
Conture, E. G. (2001). Stuttering: Its nature, diagnosis, and treatment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Conture, E., Louko, L., & Edwards, M. L. (1993). Simultaneously treating childhood stuttering and
disordered phonology: Experimental therapy, preliminary findings. American Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology, 2, 72–81.
Cooper, E., & Cooper, C. (1985). Personalized fluency control therapy. Allen, TX: DLM.
Dietrich, S., Barry, S. J., & Parker, D. E. (1995). Middle latency auditory responses in males who
stutter. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 5–17.
U.S. Department of Education (2001). 23rd Annual Report to Congress on the implementation of
Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC (retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/offices/
OSERS/OSEP/OSEPOOAnlRp.html).
Erickson, R. L. (1969). Assessing communication attitudes among stutterers. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 12, 711–724.
Fahey, K. R., & Reid, D. K. (2000). Language development, differences, and disorders: A perspective
for general and special education teachers and classroom-based speech–language pathologists.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448 447

Fink, A. (1995). The survey handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gierut, J. A. (1998). Treatment efficacy: Functional phonological disorders in children. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, S85–S100.
Guitar, B. (1998). Stuttering: An integrated approach to its nature and treatment (2nd ed.).
Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Heltman, H. J., & Peacher, G. M. (1943). Misarticulation and diadokokinesis in the spastic paralytic.
Journal of Speech Disorders, 8, 137–145.
Kayser, H. (1995). Bilingual speech–language pathology: An Hispanic focus. San Diego, CA:
Singular Publishing.
Louko, L. J., Edwards, M. L., & Conture, E. G. (1999). Treating children who exhibit co-occurring
stuttering and disordered phonology. In R. F. Curlee (Ed.), Stuttering and related disorders of
fluency (2nd ed., pp. 124–138). New York: Thieme Medical Publishers.
Ludlow, C. L. (1999). A conceptual framework for investigating the neurobiology of stuttering. In N.
B. Ratner & C. E. Healey (Eds.), Stuttering research and practice: Bridging the gap (pp. 63–84).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Manning, W. H. (2002). Clinical decision making in the diagnosis and treatment of fluency disorders
(2nd ed.). New York: Delmar Publishers.
Melnick, K. S., & Conture, E. G. (2000). Relationship of length and grammatical complexity to the
systematic and nonsystematic speech errors and stuttering of children who stutter. Journal of
Fluency Disorders, 25, 21–45.
Nippold, M. A. (1990). Concomitant speech and language disorders in stuttering children: A critique
of the literature. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 51–60.
Nippold, M. A. (2001). Phonological disorders and stuttering in children: What is the frequency of
co-occurrence? Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 15, 219–228.
Nippold, M. A. (2002). Stuttering and phonology: Is there an interaction? American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 99–110.
Nippold, M. A., & Schwarz, I. E. (1990). Reading disorders in stuttering children. Journal of Fluency
Disorders, 15, 175–189.
Paden, E. P., & Yairi, E. (1996). Phonological characteristics of children whose stuttering persisted or
recovered. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 981–990.
Paden, E. P., Yairi, E., & Ambrose, N. G. (1999). Early childhood stuttering II: Initial status of
phonological abilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,, 42, 1113–1124.
Pindzola, R. H., & White, D. T. (1986). A protocol for differentiating the incipient stutterer.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 17(1), 2–15.
Riley, G. (1994). Stuttering severity instrument for young children (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Riley, G., & Riley, J. (1988). Looking at a vulnerable system. ASHA, 30, 32–34.
Schwartz, H. D., & Conture, E. (1988). Sub-grouping young stutterers: Preliminary behavioral
perspectives. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 62–71.
Shapiro, D. A. (1999). Stuttering intervention: A collaborative journey to fluency freedom. Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Shine, R. E. (1980). Direct management of the beginning stutterer. In W. Perkins (Ed.), Seminars in
speech, language, and hearing (Strategies in stuttering therapy) (Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 339–350).
New York: Thieme-Stratton.
Shriberg, L. D., Tomblin, J. B., & McSweeney, J. L. (1999). Prevalence of speech delay in 6-year-old
children and comorbidity with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 42, 1461–1481.
St. Louis, K. O., Ruscello, D. M., & Lundeen, C. (1992). Coexistence of communication disorders in
school children. Rockville, MD: ASHA.
Starkweather, C. W., Gottwald, S. R., & Halfond, M. M. (1990). Stuttering prevention: A clinical
method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tetnowski, J. A. (1998). Linguistic effects on disfluency. In R. Paul (Ed.), Exploring the speech–
language connection (Vol. 8, pp. 227–247). Bern: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
448 G.W. Blood et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (2003) 427–448

Van Riper, C. (1982). The nature of stuttering (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Watkins, R., & Yairi, E. (1997). Language production abilities of children whose stuttering persisted
or recovered. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,, 40, 385–399.
Watkins, R., Yairi, E., & Ambrose, N. (1999). Early childhood stuttering III: Initial status of
expressive language abilities. Journal of Speech-Language Hearing Research, 42, 1125–1135.
Wetmore, R. F., Muntz, H. R., & McGill, T. J. (2000). Pediatric otolaryngology: Principles and
practice pathways. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers.
Williams, D. E., Darley, F. L., & Spriestersbach, D. C. (1978). Appraisal of rate and fluency. In F. L.
Darley & D. C. Spriestersbach (Eds.), Diagnostic methods in speech pathology (2nd ed., pp. 256–
283). New York: Harper & Row.
Wolk, L. (1998). Intervention strategies for children who exhibit coexisting phonological and fluency
disorders: A clinical note. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 14, 69–82.
Yairi, E. (1990). Subtyping child stutterers for research purposes. American Speech–language
Hearing Association Report Series No. 18 (50–57).
Yairi, E., & Ambrose, N. (1992). A longitudinal study of stuttering in children: A preliminary report.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 755–760.
Yairi, E. E., & Ambrose, N. G. (1999). Early childhood stuttering I: Persistency and recovery rates.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,, 42, 1097–1112.
Yaruss, J. S., & Conture, E. G. (1996). Stuttering and phonological disorders in children:
Examination of the covert repair hypothesis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39,
349–364.
Yaruss, J., LaSalle, L., & Conture, E. G. (1998). Evaluating young children who stutter: Diagnostic
data. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 62–76.