In the published article, there was an error in Table 4. The study by Rabensteiner (1975) was missing in the table. The corrected Table 4, “Measurement approaches,” and its caption appear below.
Table 4
| Study | Assessor(s) | Instrument | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parent(s), SLP(s), author(s)/researcher(s), student(s), stutterer, or other | Clinical judgment, parental judgment, self-report, or other | Speaking situation as described in study | Speech sample (audio/video, duration and number of utterances, words, or syllables), written sources, real-time observation (duration and/or number of utterances, words, or syllables), or own experience | |
| Devenny and Silverman (1990) | SLPs | Clinical judgment | Conversation about work and recreation | Speech sample (video, 10 min, first 150 words) |
| Eggers and van Eerdenbrugh (2018) | Authors | Clinical judgment | Play session with toy or book adapted to age and interests | Speech sample (audio, 15 min, 50 utterances1) |
| Gottsleben (1955) | Author and SLPs | Clinical judgment | NR | Written sources |
| Hokstad et al. (2022) | Researchers | Clinical judgment | Picture book dialogue and story-retelling | Speech sample (audio, unknown duration/number of utterances/words/syllables) |
| Keane (1970) | 1 = SLP 2 = SLPs and other (clinical experience with stutterers) | Clinical judgment | 1 and 2 = Interviews about daily life and interests | 1 = Real-time observation (ca. 10 min), 2 = Speech sample (video, mean duration 10 min) |
| Kumin (1994) | Parent | Parental judgment | NR | Real-time observation (NR) |
| Martyn et al. (1969) | SLPs and students | Clinical judgment | Conversation, interview or reading sample adapted to the level of intellectual disability | Real-time observation (NR) |
| Preus (1972) | 1) NR 2) Other (personnel day institutions) 3) NR | Clinical judgment | 1) Spontaneous speech evoked by means of conversation pictures 2) Daily interaction 3) NR | 1) Speech sample (audio, mean duration 9.47 min, min/max = 3.5–28 min, minimum 200 words) 2) real-time observation (NR) 3) NR |
| Rabensteiner (1975) | Other (two observers) | Clinical judgment | Test situation | Real-time observation |
| Rohovsky (1965) | 10 grad. students (speech and hearing science) | Clinical judgment | Story retelling | Speech sample (audio, 30 s) |
| Salihovic et al. (2012) | SLPs | Clinical judgment | Spontaneous speech elicited through pictures | 1 and 2 = Speech sample (audio, minimum 200 syllables) 3 = real-time observation (minimum 200 syllables) |
| Schieve et al. (2009) | Adult family member (usually parent) | Parental judgment | NR | Real-time observation (NR) |
| Schlanger and Gottsleben (1957) | Authors/researchers | Clinical judgment | NR | Written sources |
| Stansfield (1990) | 1 = Other (nursing or ATC staff) 2 and 3 = SLP and students | 1 = Other (paid caregivers) 2 and 3 = Clinical judgment | 1 = NR 2 = Informal interaction 3 = Assessment situation | 1 = Real-time observation (NR) 2 = Real-time observation (5 min) 3 = Speech sample (audio, 30 min) |
Measurement approaches.
In cases where assessments have been conducted in several stages each stage is numbered, SLP, speech and language pathologist; min, minutes; NR, not reported. 1When 50 utterances were not available the maximum number of utterances was used. In cases in which assessments have been conducted in several stages, each stage is numbered, SLP, speech and language pathologist; ATC staff, adult training center staff; min, minutes; NR, not reported; grad., graduate.
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Statements
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
Down syndrome, stuttering, speech, disfluency, stuttering assessment, systematic review
Citation
Hokstad S and Næss K-AB (2024) Corrigendum: Stuttering in individuals with Down syndrome: a systematic review of earlier research. Front. Psychol. 15:1440913. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1440913
Received
30 May 2024
Accepted
17 June 2024
Published
03 July 2024
Volume
15 - 2024
Edited and reviewed by
Susan Loveall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Hokstad and Næss.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Silje Hokstad silje.hokstad@inn.no
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.