Exploring the Relationship Between Resilience and the Adverse Impact of Stuttering in Children.

PURPOSE: People who stutter often experience significant adverse impact related to stuttering. However, it is unclear how adverse impact develops in children who stutter (CWS) and whether there are protective factors that may mitigate its development. This study examined the relationship between resilience, a potentially protective factor, and stuttering's adverse impact in CWS. Resilience comprises external factors, such as family support and access to resources as well as personal attributes, making it a comprehensive protective factor to explore. METHOD: One hundred forty-eight CWS aged 5-18 years completed the age-appropriate version of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM) and the Overall Assessment of the Speaker's Experience of Stuttering. Parents completed a caregiver version of the CYRM and a behavioral checklist for their child. The adverse impact of stuttering was modeled as a function of resilience (external, personal, and total), controlling for child age and behavioral checklist score. We also estimated correlations between child-report and parent-report CYRM measures to assess rater agreement. RESULTS: Children reporting greater external, personal, or total resilience were more likely to experience lower degrees of adverse impact related to their stuttering. We documented stronger correlations between younger child and parent ratings of resilience and weaker correlations between older child and parent ratings. CONCLUSIONS: These results yield valuable insight into the variability of adverse impact experienced by CWS and offer empirical support for strength-based speech therapy approaches. We discuss the factors that contribute to a child's resilience and provide practical suggestions for how clinicians can incorporate resilience-building strategies into intervention for children experiencing significant adverse impact from their stuttering. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.23582172.

Emotional Regulation and Its Influence on the Experience of Stuttering Across the Life Span.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the relationship between emotional regulation (ER) and adverse impact related to stuttering across the developmental spectrum, in preschool and school-age children, adolescents, and adults who stutter. An additional aim examined how these variables relate to the ways that individuals approach speaking (i.e., their agreement on whether their goal is to speak fluently). METHOD: Participants were the parents of 60 preschoolers and younger school-age children (ages 3-9 years), 95 school-age children and adolescents who stutter (ages 7-18 years), and 180 adults who stutter (ages 18-81 years). All participants completed surveys with age-appropriate measures examining ER and the adverse impact of stuttering. Older children and adults who stutter also answered questions regarding their goals when speaking. Multiple regression and ordinal logistic regression were used to examine relationships among ER, adverse impact related to stuttering, and goal when speaking. RESULTS: In preschool children, adverse impact was significantly predicted by a parent-reported measure of ER skills; in school-age children and adults, adverse impact was significantly predicted by measures of the ER strategies cognitive reappraisal (CR) and expressive suppression. Less frequent use of CR by adults was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of having "not stuttering" as a goal when speaking. Differences in the significance and magnitude of these relationships were found across the life span. DISCUSSION: For both children and adults who stutter, ER is a significant factor related to the adverse impact of stuttering; the relationship between ER and adverse impact may change over development. Accounting for individual differences in ER can improve understanding of why a person copes with stuttering in the ways they do, and this has notable implications for individualizing intervention for both children and adults who stutter. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20044469.

Exploratory factor analysis of the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire in patients with chronic ankle instability.

PURPOSE: To perform an exploratory factor analysis of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire in patients with chronic ankle instability. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was utilized. The Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire was administered to patients with chronic ankle instability who met the inclusion criteria. Both an unrestricted and restricted factor analysis with varimax rotation were utilized to explore the factor structure of the instrument. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin values were used to determine sampling adequacy. Bartlett's test of sphericity was used to justify that the correlations were suitable for the principal component analysis. RESULTS: The restricted two-factor analysis resulted in two factors with acceptable internal consistency values. The Keiser-Meyer-Olkin value was acceptable (0.81), and Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (55) = 515.59, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The ankle-specific Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire consists of two stable factors and should be used to further examine fear-avoidance beliefs in people with chronic ankle instability.

Exercise-Based Rehabilitation and Manual Therapy Compared With Exercise-Based Rehabilitation Alone in the Treatment of Chronic Ankle Instability: A Critically Appraised Topic.

Clinical Scenario: Patients with chronic ankle instability (CAI) commonly display lower levels of self-reported function and health-related quality of life. Several rehabilitation interventions, including manual therapy, have been investigated to help CAI patients overcome these deficits. However, it is unclear if the addition of manual therapy to exercise-based rehabilitation is more effective than exercise-based rehabilitation alone. Clinical Question: Does incorporating manual therapy with exercise-based rehabilitation improve patient-reported outcomes when compared with exercise-based rehabilitation alone? Summary of Key Findings: The literature was searched for articles that examined the difference in outcomes for patients with CAI between manual therapy with exercise-based rehabilitation and exercise-based rehabilitation alone. A total of 3 peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials were identified. Two articles demonstrated improved patient-reported outcome scores following the incorporation of manual therapy with exercise-based rehabilitation, whereas one study found no statistically significant differences between interventions. Clinical Bottom Line: The current evidence suggests that incorporating manual therapy in addition to exercised-based rehabilitation may improve patient-reported outcome scores in patients with CAI. Strength of Recommendation: In accordance with the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy, the grade of A is recommended due to consistent evidence from high-quality studies.