These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21434809)

  • 1. Comparison of alternative methods for obtaining severity scores of the speech of people who stutter.
    Howell P; Soukup-Ascencao T; Davis S; Rusbridge S
    Clin Linguist Phon; 2011 May; 25(5):368-78. PubMed ID: 21434809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Scores on Riley's stuttering severity instrument versions three and four for samples of different length and for different types of speech material.
    Todd H; Mirawdeli A; Costelloe S; Cavenagh P; Davis S; Howell P
    Clin Linguist Phon; 2014 Dec; 28(12):912-26. PubMed ID: 24938354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Intrajudge and Interjudge Reliability of the Stuttering Severity Instrument-Fourth Edition.
    Davidow JH; Scott KA
    Am J Speech Lang Pathol; 2017 Nov; 26(4):1105-1119. PubMed ID: 28841724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Procedures used for assessment of stuttering frequency and stuttering duration.
    Jani L; Huckvale M; Howell P
    Clin Linguist Phon; 2013 Dec; 27(12):853-61. PubMed ID: 23848369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Identifying the authoritative judgments of stuttering: comparisons of self-judgments and observer judgments.
    Ingham RJ; Cordes AK
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1997 Jun; 40(3):581-94. PubMed ID: 9210116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparisons of audio and audiovisual measures of stuttering frequency and severity in preschool-age children.
    Rousseau I; Onslow M; Packman A; Jones M
    Am J Speech Lang Pathol; 2008 May; 17(2):173-8. PubMed ID: 18448604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The reliability of simultaneous versus individual data collection during stuttering assessment.
    Davidow JH; Ye J; Edge RL
    Int J Lang Commun Disord; 2023; 58(4):1251-1267. PubMed ID: 36861494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Factors affecting occupational advice for speakers who do and do not stutter.
    Logan KJ; O'Connor EM
    J Fluency Disord; 2012 Mar; 37(1):25-41. PubMed ID: 22325920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A Persian-version of the stuttering severity instrument-version four (SSI-4): How the new additions to SSI-4 complement its stuttering severity score?
    Tahmasebi N; Shafie B; Karimi H; Mazaheri M
    J Commun Disord; 2018; 74():1-9. PubMed ID: 29723653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Is it necessary to assess fluent symptoms, duration of dysfluent events, and physical concomitants when identifying children who have speech difficulties?
    Mirawdeli A; Howell P
    Clin Linguist Phon; 2016; 30(9):696-719. PubMed ID: 27315282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Measurement of stuttering in adults: comparison of stuttering-rate and severity-scaling methods.
    O'Brian S; Packman A; Onslow M; O'Brian N
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2004 Oct; 47(5):1081-7. PubMed ID: 15603463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Speech Situation Checklist-Emotional Reaction: Normative and comparative study of Kannada-speaking children who do and do not stutter.
    Veerabhadrappa RC; Vanryckeghem M; Maruthy S
    Int J Speech Lang Pathol; 2021 Oct; 23(5):559-568. PubMed ID: 33586523
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Speech Efficiency Score (SES): A time-domain measure of speech fluency.
    Amir O; Shapira Y; Mick L; Yaruss JS
    J Fluency Disord; 2018 Dec; 58():61-69. PubMed ID: 30119862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparing judgments of stuttering made by students, clinicians, and highly experienced judges.
    Brundage SB; Bothe AK; Lengeling AN; Evans JJ
    J Fluency Disord; 2006; 31(4):271-83. PubMed ID: 16982086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effects of bilingualism on stuttering during late childhood.
    Howell P; Davis S; Williams R
    Arch Dis Child; 2009 Jan; 94(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 18782846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assessment of stuttering in a familiar versus an unfamiliar language.
    Van Borsel J; Medeiros de Britto Pereira M
    J Fluency Disord; 2005; 30(2):109-24. PubMed ID: 15927246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Auditory abilities of speakers who persisted, or recovered, from stuttering.
    Howell P; Davis S; Williams SM
    J Fluency Disord; 2006; 31(4):257-70. PubMed ID: 16920188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Time-interval analysis of interjudge and intrajudge agreement for stuttering event judgments.
    Cordes AK; Ingham RJ; Frank P; Ingham JC
    J Speech Hear Res; 1992 Jun; 35(3):483-94. PubMed ID: 1608240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A new method to sample stuttering in preschool children.
    O'Brian S; Jones M; Pilowsky R; Onslow M; Packman A; Menzies R
    Int J Speech Lang Pathol; 2010 Jun; 12(3):173-7. PubMed ID: 20433336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effect of syntactic structure upon speech initiation times of stuttering and nonstuttering speakers.
    Logan KJ
    J Fluency Disord; 2003; 28(1):17-35. PubMed ID: 12706911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.