A preliminary comparison of fluent and non-fluent speech through Turkish predictive cluttering inventory-revised


Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol.79, 2024 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 79
  • Publication Date: 2024
  • Doi Number: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2023.106019
  • Journal Name: Journal of Fluency Disorders
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, PASCAL, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Communication & Mass Media Index, Communication Abstracts, Educational research abstracts (ERA), Linguistic Bibliography, Linguistics & Language Behavior Abstracts, MLA - Modern Language Association Database, Psycinfo
  • Keywords: Cluttering, Stuttering, Turkish Predictive Cluttering Inventory-revised
  • Istanbul Medipol University Affiliated: Yes


Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the speech fluency performance of non-fluent participants namely people with stuttering (PWS), people with cluttering (PWC) and people with cluttering and stuttering (PWCS) with a fluent control group using the Turkish version of Predictive Cluttering Inventory-revised (TR-PCI-r). Methods: The study recruited non-fluent individuals (n = 60) and fluent controls (n = 60) between the ages of 6 and 55. The non-fluent group was perceptually evaluated by two speech and language pathologists (SLP). The speaking, reading and retelling samples were collected from 18 PWC, 17 PWCS, 25 PWS and 60 controls. The scores of each factor were compared. Age and gender differences were analyzed. Validity and reliability were calculated. Results: The agreement between two SLPs was found to be at the barely acceptable level (κ = 0.378). PWC and PWCS produced parallel outcomes in the speech motor area. In every other domain and in total scores, PWC were different from PWCS, PWS, and the controls. There was a variation in the total scores obtained by the children and adolescents in the PWS and between males and females in the controls. Except for three items (namely items 8, 22, 27), TR-PCI-r met the content validity criterion. Furthermore, TR-PCI-r was found to be a reliable tool as shown by ɑ> 0.70 and ICC values of between 0.75 and 0.90. Conclusion: The scores from TR-PCI-r indicated that, speech motor characteristics of PWC and PWCS were similar. Other features assessed by the tool seemed to distinguish PWC from PWCS, PWS and controls.