Professors' Perceptions and Evaluations of Students Who Do and Do Not Stutter Following Oral Presentations

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptual ratings and performance evaluations of students who do and do not stutter by professors who require oral presentations. Additionally, this study sought to investigate the influence of behaviors related to communication competence on perceptual and evaluative ratings. Method: One hundred fifty-eight college instructors who require oral presentations in their classes participated in this study. Participants viewed one video of four possible randomized conditions: (a) presence of stuttering + low communication competence, (b) absence of stuttering + low communication competence, (c) presence of stuttering + high communication competence, and (d) absence of stuttering + high communication competence. Participants evaluated student performance against a standardized rubric and rated the student along 16 personality traits. Results: Results of separate 2 × 2 analyses of variance revealed professors' view and evaluate students presenting with high communication competence more positively overall, regardless as to whether stuttering is present or not. Significant interactions between fluency (i.e., presence vs. absence of stuttering) and communication competence (i.e., high vs. low) were found for negative personality traits, as well as delivery evaluation scores. The video for which the student stuttered and presented with low communication competence was rated more positively than the video for which the student did not stutter and presented with low communication competence. Conclusions: Professors perceive and evaluate students who stutter differently from their nonstuttering peers, and those ratings are moderated by levels of communication competence. High-communication-competence behaviors improved perceptual and evaluation scores; however, in the presence of low-communication-competence behaviors, professors overcorrect in the form of positive feedback bias, which may have negative long-term academic consequences.

Observer-rated outcomes of Communication-Centered Treatment (CCT) for adults who stutter: A preliminary study

“…Results are contrary to recent works by Werle and Byrd [50,66], however, who detailed a potential positive response bias when raters with higher years of education (i.e., college professors) evaluate students who stutter. It is possible that positive response bias becomes less evident for respondents who experience fewer years of academic evaluation based on communication abilities, or perhaps a unique pattern observed for professors and teachers whose job duties require ongoing evaluation of adult students.…”

“…It is possible that positive response bias becomes less evident for respondents who experience fewer years of academic evaluation based on communication abilities, or perhaps a unique pattern observed for professors and teachers whose job duties require ongoing evaluation of adult students. It is also possible that dyadic speaking context lowered the likelihood of positive feedback bias found for professors, who were perhaps more likely to overcorrect their personal biases observed for Werle and Byrd [50,66] when presented with a speaker in a context for which they regularly provide evaluation (e.g., presentations). In that respect, positive response bias for the mock interviews included in the present study may be more apparent for respondents with a history of employment or training in human resources.…”

“…These same respondents often provided specific negative feedback focusing on the speaker's accent and/or level of English proficiency. Future studies of this nature should provide a clear definition of as well as linguistic versus speech fluency from the outset, similar to the instructions provided to respondents in Werle and Byrd [50,66] fluency versus communication skills.…”

Observer-rated outcomes of communication-centered treatment for adults who stutter: A social validation study

“…The following study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Texas at Austin (IRB: 2015-05-0044, [ 62 ]). Survey participants indicated consent prior to participation by clicking to advance to the first survey question after reading the cover letter that includes a description of the study, potential benefits and minimal risk of voluntary participation, and compensation for participation ($0.50 per participant, similar to Werle and Byrd [ 61 , 63 , 64 ]). Communication competency stimuli consisted of two separate videos: one depicting a speaker before he had completed CCT (Pre-treatment Video) and one depicting the same speaker after he had received CCT (Post-treatment Video).…”

“…Additionally, factors known to mitigate an observer’s overall evaluation of an adult who stutters as a person may override any attempt to measure a targeted trait, such as communication competence, resulting in overly positive evaluations (see Werle & Byrd [ 61 ] for positive feedback bias by professors when evaluating presentations by students who stutter) or overly negative evaluations (see Byrd et al [ 22 ], for gender bias towards adults who disclose stuttering). Thus, it is plausible that observer ratings of the communication competence of a particular adult who stutters may be driven entirely by their overall perception of all people who stutter.…”