G Model

JFD-5477; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Fluency Disorders xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Fluency Disorders

Australian normative data for the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s

Experience of Stuttering
Elaine Blumgart a,∗ , Yvonne Tran a , J. Scott Yaruss b , Ashley Craig a
a
Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Northern Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, P.O. Box 6, Ryde, NSW 1680, Australia
b
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: People who stutter often report negative impacts on their wellbeing as a result of their
Received 22 June 2011 chronic fluency disorder. The need for a comprehensive assessment of the wellbeing and
Received in revised form experience of stuttering should be a prime consideration when measuring treatment
15 December 2011
outcomes. One such measure designed to evaluate wellbeing and aspects of the individual’s
Accepted 21 December 2011
experience of his or her stuttering is the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of
Available online xxx
Stuttering (OASES). Normative data for the OASES Adult version (OASES-A; and hereafter
referred to simply as the OASES) has begun to be collected over the past 10 years, though
Keywords:
none are available for an Australian population. This paper presents Australian normative
Quality of life
Stuttering data for the OASES for 200 adult males and females who stutter, aged between 18 and 85
OVERALL Assessment of the Speaker’s years. Additionally, the influence of age, sex, and frequency of stuttering on the Australian
Experience of Stuttering (OASES) OASES scores are also presented. No significant relationships between OASES scores were
Australian normative data found for sex and age, which is in keeping with the USA original dataset. However, those
participants who had more severe stuttering were more likely to have higher negative
impacts for ‘General Information’, Communication in Daily Situations,’ and for the overall
OASES score. Implications for further research are discussed.

Educational objectives: The reader will be able to: (i) describe the purpose of the Overall
Experience of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering for Adults (OASES), (ii) evaluate the
relevance of the OASES to treatment planning and the evaluation of stuttering treatment
outcomes in the adult population, and (iii) compare Australian normative dataset with the
USA and Dutch normative datasets for the OASES.
© 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.

1. Introduction

The ability to communicate effectively is an integral part of an individual’s life (Kagan et al., 2008; Yaruss, 2004). Con-
sequently, it is possible that a communication disorder could result in psychosocial problems that may negatively impact
quality of life (Costa & Kroll, 2000; Craig, Blumgart, & Tran, 2009; Shapiro, 1999; Treon, Dempster, & Blaesing, 2006). Stutter-
ing is a fluency disorder that can have negative psychological, emotional, and social repercussions (Bothe, Davidow, Bramlett,
& Ingham, 2006; Craig, Hancock, Tran, Craig, & Peters, 2003; Messenger, Onslow, Packman, & Menzies, 2004; Prins & Ingham,
2009; Yaruss, Quesal, & Murphy, 2002; Yaruss, Quesal, Reeves et al., 2002). Typical problems include elevated levels of social
anxiety (Blumgart, Tran, & Craig, 2010; Iverach et al., 2009), a reduced capacity to function in the work environment (Klein

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 96624809; fax: +61 2 96624809.

E-mail address: elaine.blumgart@gmail.com (E. Blumgart).

0094-730X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.

doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2011.12.002

Please cite this article in press as: Blumgart, E., et al. Australian normative data for the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s
Experience of Stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders (2012), doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2011.12.002
G Model
JFD-5477; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 E. Blumgart et al. / Journal of Fluency Disorders xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

& Hood, 2004; Klompas & Ross, 2004), and physical and emotional fatigue from having to constantly monitor speech in an
effort to control stuttering. These aspects contribute to the individual’s perception of his or her quality of life (QOL; Craig
et al., 2009).
The notion underlying QOL investigation is that physical improvement resulting from treatment is no longer considered
the only treatment goal. Rather, the individual’s perceptions of their personal wellbeing, ability to participate freely in
daily activities and levels of self-confidence, are considered equally important to any physical improvement post-treatment
(Garratt, 2009; McCabe & Priebe, 2002; Pope & Tarlov, 1991; Yaruss, 2010). While it has been noted that QOL is an important
measure when estimating the impact of communication disorders and the efficacy of treatment (Klompas & Ross, 2004;
Yaruss & Quesal, 2006), unfortunately QOL research in stuttering is only recently being conducted (Blumgart, Tran & Craig,
2010; Bramlett, Bothe, & Franic, 2006; Craig et al., 2009; Franic & Bothe, 2008; Klompas & Ross, 2004; Yaruss & Quesal, 2006).
Although generic or general measures of QOL have been widely used to determine QOL impact, there is a need for stuttering
specific QOL measures (Franic & Bothe, 2008; Yaruss & Quesal, 2006).
The Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering (OASES; Yaruss & Quesal, 2006, 2010) is the first pub-
lished psychometric measure designed to examine functional communication difficulties and QOL from the perspective of
individuals who stutter (Yaruss & Quesal, 2006). The measure consists of 100 items in four separate parts or sections: ‘Gen-
eral Information,’ ‘Reactions to Stuttering,’ ‘Communication in Daily Situations’ and ‘Quality of Life’. A detailed description
of the development, nature, and ongoing use of the OASES in research has been described elsewhere (Yaruss, 2001; Yaruss &
Quesal, 2004, 2006). Items are rated on a Likert scale, from 1 to 5 (Likert, 1932). Higher scores for the OASES indicate higher
levels of impact. All response choices require an estimate of impact. The scores provide an indication of the extent to which
stuttering impacts aspects of the speaker’s life. This scoring method does not allow for a zero impact rating. This could be
seen as a design shortcoming as it assumes that all people who stutter will experience some impact. The OASES provides an
impact rating and impact score, calculated out of 100.
The design of the OASES was based on the World Health Organization’s original International Classification of Impair-
ments, Disabilities, and Handicaps (ICIDH; WHO, 1980, 1993) and current ICF International Classification of Functioning,
Disability and Health frameworks (ICF: WHO, 2001). It was developed using a varied sample of individuals who stutter aged
from 7 years to almost 80 years. The OASES is a comprehensive, pen and paper, self-report measure. It was designed as a
descriptive outcome measure to supplement other clinician-administered measures of stuttering in order to provide a more
complete account of the speaker’s experience of stuttering. The contribution of the OASES lies in serving as a monitoring
tool in the evaluation of stuttering treatment outcomes.
Empirical data have provided preliminary support for the reliability and validity of the OASES, based on samples collected
in the United States (Yaruss & Quesal, 2006). Analyses have revealed a high degree of test–retest reliability for impact scores,
with mean differences ranging from 2.1 to 3 (standard error ranged from 1.9 to 2.6). Comparison between impact ratings
revealed strong reliability between initial and follow-up administration of the OASES. The authors concluded that the OASES
demonstrates acceptable reliability and validity sufficient to support its use in the evaluation of treatment outcomes.
Available normative data for the OASES over the past decade has come exclusively from a North American cohort of
173 adults who stutter, aged 18–78 years. This cohort was drawn primarily from the National Stuttering Association (NSA)
database and several clinics throughout the USA. Owing to the likelihood that different English speaking populations as
well as culturally diverse populations may have different attitudes towards stuttering (ASHA, 1986; Bebout & Arthur, 1992;
Finn & Cordes, 1997; Holland & Forbes, 1986; Leith, 1988), the authors have called for further collaborative normative
data worldwide (Yaruss, 2010). Normative data for a Dutch cohort of 138 adults who stutter were investigated (Koedoot,
Versteegh, & Yaruss, 2011). This paper reports on the translation process of the OASES from English into Dutch and evaluates
the psychometric performance of a Dutch version of the OASES (n = 138). Clearly, additional normative data are required
for the OASES, and to date the OASES has not been standardized on an Australian population. The current investigation was
designed to provide an Australian normative dataset for the OASES. Specific research aims for this study are: (i) to determine
the distribution of the Australian normative dataset for the OASES, (ii) to ascertain whether the USA and Australian OASES
datasets are comparable, and (iii) to reveal if a relationship exists between sex, age, and percent syllables stuttered with the
OASES.

2. Method

2.1. Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering (OASES)

The OASES questionnaire aims to describe the experience and impact of stuttering from the perspective of the individual
who stutters. The measure consists of 100 items in four separate sections, each examining a different aspect of the stuttering
condition. (i) General Information (20 items) describes general perspectives about stuttering such as perceived fluency,
speech naturalness and knowledge about stuttering; (ii) Reactions to Stuttering (30 items) pertains to the speaker’s affective,
behavioral and cognitive reactions to stuttering; (iii) Communication in Daily Situations (25 items) describes the degree of
difficulty speakers have when communicating in general situations, at work, in social situations and at home; (iv) Quality of
Life (25 items) describes how much stuttering interferes with the speaker’s satisfaction with their ability to communicate,
their relationships, and their overall sense of well-being.

Please cite this article in press as: Blumgart, E., et al. Australian normative data for the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s
Experience of Stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders (2012), doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2011.12.002
G Model
JFD-5477; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Blumgart et al. / Journal of Fluency Disorders xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 3

Table 1
Demographic information for age, percent syllables stuttered (%SS), age at diagnosis and previous treatment received for the Australian male (n = 151) and
female (n = 49) adults who stutter.

Age (in years) %SS Age at diagnosis (in years) Stuttering treatment in the last 5 years

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Males (n = 151) 46.7 (16) 3.6 (2.7) 5.8 (2.6) 90 (59.6%)

Females (n = 49) 42.5 (16) 3.9 (3.2) 5.5 (3.2) 31 (63.3%)

Total sample (n = 200) 45.7 (16) 3.7 (2.8) 5.7 (2.8) 121 (60.5%)

Responses are rated on a Likert scale with response choices ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate higher levels of
impact. Responses are totaled into raw scores and then converted to scaled-scores or “impact” scores and impact ratings
(mild–severe). Importantly, an overall impact score is provided for each section and for the entire instrument. Impact scores
provide an indication of the impact of stuttering on various aspects of the speaker’s life. The impact scores and impact
ratings, together with other stuttering severity measures such as percent syllables stuttered (%SS), can provide cross check
and descriptive information about the impact of the experience of stuttering.

2.2. Participants

Participants for this study were 200 Australian male and female adults who stutter. Table 1 shows demographic infor-
mation for the participants. Adults who stutter were invited into the study via self-help groups in New South Wales (NSW),
and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) (87%), as well as from contacts in private speech pathology practices, general
medical practitioners, speech pathology departments of public hospitals and community health-care centres (13%). Recruit-
ment continued until 200 individuals who met eligibility criteria had agreed to participate. Based on prior research (Craig
et al., 2003), it was judged that 200 participants would provide sufficient statistical power (power > 0.9) to detect clinically
significant differences associated with stuttering (Craig et al., 2009).
Eligibility criteria for the participants consisted of: (a) the presence of a reported history of stuttering and stuttering
behaviors; (b) lack of history of a physical or neurological disorder or condition that was independent of stuttering and
which could dominate the impact of stuttering, for instance, a diagnosed neurodegenerative disorder such as Parkinson’s
Disease; (c) adults aged between 18 years and 85 years at the time of interview; (d) having functional English language skills
as determined by the researcher during a short conversation.
The ratio of male to female (M:F) participants was 3.1:1, in keeping with epidemiological data from research conducted
in NSW, Australia (Craig, Hancock, Tran, Craig, & Peters, 2002). The final sample composition was 151 males and 49 females.
Mean age for the total sample was 45.7 years (SD = 16). The age range for the sample was 18–85 years, and participants were
recruited in direct proportion with the then most recent NSW adult age-distribution population statistics in 2006 (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2006; www.abs.gov.au). This was achieved by dividing the age range into five-year cells (e.g., 30–34
years), and determining the participant numbers needed for each cell based on the then NSW population distribution and
known sex ratio for people who stutter. The study received research ethics approval from a university institutional human
research ethics committee and written consent was obtained before participating in the study.

2.2.1. Demographic data

Demographic data included age, sex, level of education, age at which stuttering was diagnosed, country of birth and
employment status. Education was categorized into four levels: elementary or primary schooling, high or secondary school,
those who had completed a technical education course and those who had completed some form of college or university
education. Employment status was categorized into those with full-time employment, those with part-time employment,
self-employed, student, retired and unemployed. Country of birth was categorized into those born in Australia and those
born overseas.
Most of the participants had sought treatment of some kind for their stuttering in their lifetime (n = 187; 93.5%), while
60.5% had sought treatment in the previous five years. For the few who had never sought treatment, reasons included
treatment not available, believing their stutter was not severe enough and lack of faith in treatment. The lifetime treatment
figures are consistent with previous findings (Yaruss, Quesal, & Murphy, 2002; Yaruss, Quesal, Reeves et al., 2002).
A total of 26% (n = 52) were born overseas and were immigrants to Australia. Table 1 provides details for the 200 partici-
pants on sex breakdown, age, age diagnosed with stuttering, %SS and whether participants had had treatment for stuttering
in the prior five years. There were no significant differences between male and female adults for age; age diagnosed with
stuttering or %SS. The mean age for the total sample was 45.7 years and the mean %SS for the sample was 3.7%SS. Regarding
level of education, 56% had completed college or university studies, 22.5% had completed some form of technical education,
17% had completed six years of secondary school education and 4.5% had completed four or less years of secondary school-
ing. Employment profiles of the participants showed that 62% (n = 124) were working full-time at the time of the study,
11% (n = 22) were part-time or engaged in home duties, 4.5% (n = 9) were students, 10.5% (n = 21) were self-employed, 10.5%

Please cite this article in press as: Blumgart, E., et al. Australian normative data for the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s
Experience of Stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders (2012), doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2011.12.002
G Model
JFD-5477; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 E. Blumgart et al. / Journal of Fluency Disorders xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

(n = 21) had retired and 1.5% (n = 3) were unemployed. Interestingly, the Australian unemployment level at the time of the
investigation was 4–5%.

2.3. Design

A population group cohort design was used. Participants were recruited according to the proportion of the age distribution
for the community in which the study was conducted.

2.4. Procedure

The participants attended a face-to-face interview conducted in a relaxed environment as is recommended in social
science research (Alderson, 2001). After the consent form was signed, providing permission for the interview to take place
the participant and the interviewer engaged in informal discussion for approximately 3 min and this was audio recorded for
the purpose of determining frequency of stuttering. As this questionnaire is not used in an interview context, participants
completed all four parts of the OASES instrument, following the interview situation.

2.5. Measures

Stuttering frequency, or percent syllables stuttered (%SS), a behavioral measure of stuttering severity, was calculated from
3-min recorded speech samples of conversational speech collected during face-to-face interviews. The %SS was calculated
using a method with acceptable validity and reliability (Craig et al., 1996). The speech samples were recorded using a 20 GB
MP3 HDD digital audio and video player (Cowon IAUDIO X5 HDD).
Table 1 shows mean %SS scores for the sample. In terms of the %SS breakdown, 126 (63%) had scores less than 4%SS, 52
(26%) scored between 4 and 6%SS, and 22 (11%) had scores greater than 7%SS. The %SS mean for the entire sample of 200 was
3.7 (SD = 2.8; median = 3, min = .2 max = 15.7, 95%CI = 3.9–4.1). Stuttering severity was calculated by an experienced speech
pathologist (rater 1). In order to confirm the reliability of the speech measure, an experienced clinician and researcher (rater
2) randomly assessed 10% of the speech samples. Inter-rater reliability was established for severity of stuttering as measured
by %SS, and no significant differences between the scores obtained by rater 1 and rater 2 were found (mean %SS for rater
1 = 3.37, SD = 3.4; mean %SS for rater 2 = 3.66, SD = 3.5; df = 38, t = 0.25, p = ns; Pearson correlation r = 0.99, p < .01). Participants
were also asked to complete all four parts of the OASES, which comprises 100 items.

2.6. Scoring

The scoring of the data followed the guidelines indicated in the original publication (Yaruss & Quesal, 2006). Each of the
100 questions of the OASES was rated on a five-point Likert scale. Responses were totaled into raw scores and then converted
to scaled-scores or “impact” scores. Importantly, an overall impact score was provided for the entire instrument, for each
participant. Impact scores provide an indication of the impact of stuttering on various aspects of the speaker’s life. It was
then possible to cross-reference impact scores to impact ratings that included mild, mild-moderate, moderate, moderate to
severe, and severe ratings. The impact ratings were based on the degree of variability around the mean. More than 1.5 SD
below the mean is believed indicative of mild impact (an impact score of 20–29.9/100); between 1.5 SD and 0.5 SD below the
mean is indicative of mild-to-moderate impact (an impact score of 30–44.9/100); between 0.5 SD below and 0.5 SD above
the mean indicates moderate impact (an impact score of 45–59.9/100); between 0.5 SD and 1.5 SD above the mean indicated
moderate-to-severe impact (an impact score of 60–74.5/100); and more than 1.5 SD above the mean indicates severe impact
(an impact score of 75–100/100) (Yaruss & Quesal, 2006, 2010). Higher scores on the OASES indicate a greater degree of
negative impact. The authors point out that although the impact ratings may be viewed as a type of severity index, they
emphasize the importance of looking at all of the responses to individual items in the instrument rather than only focusing
on the label provided by the impact rating. Note that scoring procedures for the OASES have changed twice since the original
2006 publication (see Yaruss & Quesal, 2008, 2010). It is possible to convert to the later scoring system by simply dividing
the scores from the 2006 version by 20 to yield scores on the 1 to 5 scale used in the 2008 and 2010 versions. This has been
done in Table 3 below, to allow comparison of present results to current and future studies involving the OASES.

2.7. Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated to determine Australian normative data for the OASES instrument. The significance
of the influence of age (<60 years and ≥60 years), sex (male and female), and %SS (<4%SS and ≥4%SS) were calculated. A 4%SS
severity value was used as a cut-off given that the mean %SS for the entire 200 sample was 3.7%SS. The group was therefore
split according to this mean value of 4%SS. Within group OASES score differences based on the above factors were calculated
using multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA). This was followed by post hoc Scheffé tests to ascertain where differences
existed. Pearson correlation analyses were conducted for all four parts of the OASES relative to the age, sex, education and
%SS, and these are presented in Table 6.

Please cite this article in press as: Blumgart, E., et al. Australian normative data for the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s
Experience of Stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders (2012), doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2011.12.002
G Model
JFD-5477; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Blumgart et al. / Journal of Fluency Disorders xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 5

3. Results

3.1. Australian normative data for the OASES

Table 2 shows Australian normative data for all four parts of the OASES and Total OASES scores, as well as USA (Yaruss
& Quesal, 2006) and Dutch (Koedoot et al., 2011) normative data. The datasets reported here follow the original scoring
procedures described in Yaruss and Quesal (2006). The Australian OASES measures were normally distributed (Shapiro Wilk
W = .99, p = ns). Table 3 shows a comparison of the Australian OASES impact scores to USA and Dutch norms. Again, the
similarities in the datasets are apparent. Table 4 provides Australian normative data as a function of age and sex. No overall
significant differences in OASES scores were found in the Australian scores as a function of sex: Wilks’ Lambda (4,195) = 0.97,
F = 1.6, p = 0.17. Furthermore, no overall significant differences were found as a function of age (<60 years and ≥60 years)
for all four parts of the OASES: Wilks’ Lambda (4,195) = 0.96, F = 1.8, p = 0.12. Table 5 presents Australian normative data
for all four parts of the OASES relative to percent syllables stuttered (%SS). Those with more severe stuttering (≥4%SS)
scored significantly higher than those with less severe stuttering (<4%SS) on the OASES: Wilks’ Lambda (4,195) = 0.91, F = 5.0,
p < .01. Using Scheffé protected t-tests, the more severe group scored significantly higher on ‘General Information’ (p < .01),
‘Communication in Daily Situations’ (p < .05) and for the Total OASES score (p < .01).

3.2. Relationships between the OASES and age, education levels, sex and %SS

Pearson correlations were calculated between the demographic factors age, education, sex, and %SS and all four OASES
domains as well as the Total OASES scores. These are shown in Table 6. The findings show that sex and education were not
significantly associated with the OASES scores. Age was weakly and negatively associated with communication, QOL and the
Total OASES scores. This suggests that there is a weak trend for younger participants to have more severe scores on these
OASES domains and on the Total OASES scores. Frequency of stuttering was positively, though weakly, associated with the

Table 2
Comparison of Australian normative data to North American and Dutch normative data, for all four parts of the OASES. Descriptive statistics are based on
the original scoring procedures described in Yaruss and Quesal (2006).

Datasets OASES Scores

Australian USA Dutch

n = 200 n = 173 n = 138
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

General Information 51.9 (12.1) 53.4 (13.7) 56.8 (10.4)

Reactions to Stuttering 58.2 (14.4) 55.0 (16.2) 52.2 (12.7)
Communication in Daily Situations 51.6 (13.8) 53.2 (15.3) 46.5 (11.9)
Quality of Life 49.7 (17.7) 47.8 (17.7) 40.1 (13.2)

Total 53.2 (12.9) 52.0 (14.7) 48.7 (10.5)

Table 3
Comparison of Australian OASES Impact Scores to North American and Dutch impact scores, following scoring procedures described in Yaruss and Quesal
(2010).

Datasets Australian USA Dutch

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

General Information 2.60 (0.61) 2.67 (0.69) 2.84 (0.52)

Reactions to Stuttering 2.91 (0.72) 2.75 (0.81) 2.61 (0.63)
Communication in Daily Situations 2.58 (0.69) 2.66 (0.77) 2.32 (0.59)
Quality of Life 2.49 (0.89) 2.39 (0.89) 2.00 (0.66)

Total 2.66 (0.65) 2.60 (0.74) 2.44 (0.52)

Table 4
Australian OASES normative data as a function of age and sex.

General Information Reactions to Stuttering Communication in Quality of Life

Daily Situations

Mean (SD) CI Mean (SD) CI Mean (SD) CI Mean (SD) CI

Males (n = 151) 51.6 (12.2) 49.6–53.6 86.9 (21.4) 83.4–90.3 63.1 (17.8) 60.3–66.0 61.1 (22.3) 57.5–64.6
Females (n = 49) 53.0 (11.8) 49.6–56.4 88.7 (22.5) 82.3–95.2 68.7 (14.9) 64.5–73.0 65.8 (20.6) 59.9–71.7
Age <60 (n = 157) 52.6 (12.3) 50.6–54.5 89.4 (20.2) 86.2–92.6 65.9 (16.1) 63.3–68.4 64.1 (22.4) 60.6–67.6
Age ≥60 (n = 43) 49.5 (10.9) 46.2–52.9 79.9 (25.1) 72.1–87.6 59.5 (20.6) 53.1–65.8 55.4 (18.9) 49.6–61.2

SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval of the mean; n, number of participants in group; %SS, percent syllables stuttered.

Please cite this article in press as: Blumgart, E., et al. Australian normative data for the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s
Experience of Stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders (2012), doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2011.12.002
G Model
JFD-5477; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 E. Blumgart et al. / Journal of Fluency Disorders xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Table 5
Australian normative data for all four parts of the OASES relative to %SS. Group 1 included those males or females whose %SS scores were less than 4%SS
(n = 127) and Group 2 included those whose %SS scores were greater or equal to 4%SS (n = 73).

<4%SS >4%SS

Mean (SD) CI Mean (SD) CI

General Information 49.7 (12.5) 47.5–51.9 55.9 (10.4) 53.4–58.3**

Reaction to Stuttering 57.5 (14.6) 54.9–60.1 59.5 (14.2) 56.2–62.8
Communication in Daily Living 49.8 (13.7) 47.4–52.2 54.7 (13.7) 51.5–57.9*
Quality of Life 48.4 (17.6) 45.3–51.5 51.8 (17.7) 47.7–55.9

Total 51.7 (13.1) 49.4–54.1 55.6 (12.3) 52.8–58.5**

Note: CI, 95% confidence interval of the mean; SD, standard deviation; %SS, percent syllables stuttered.
*
<.05.
**
<01.

Table 6
Pearson correlation table of age, education, sex and percent syllables stuttered (%SS) with all four parts of the OASES – Australian dataset.

General Information Reactions to Stuttering Communication in Daily Situations Quality of Life Total score

Variable
Age −.17 −.17 −.21* −.19* −.21*
Education −.13 −.16 −.13 −.10 −.14
Sex .05 .04 .14 .09 .09
Percent syllables Stuttered (%SS) .23* .06 .17 .18 .17

Note a probability level of .01 was used to control Type I error rate.
*
p < .01.

participants’ ‘General Information’ score. This suggests that a weak trend exists for those participants with higher stuttering
severity levels to score lower on the ‘General Information’ section of the OASES.

4. Discussion

This study provides Australian normative data for the adult version of the OASES. The Australian OASES dataset is com-
pared to the OASES datasets from North America and Holland. Results suggest that the three international datasets are
similar, with the mean scores for the samples of adults who stutter falling predominantly in the moderate impact category.
For the Australian and USA datasets, the main area of impact, based on the highest mean score, was for the ‘Reaction to
stuttering’ domain, suggesting that the emotional and psychological burden associated with stuttering can be substantial.
Clearly, additional research is needed to clarify these possibilities. In any case, the Australian normative dataset, along with
the existing two international datasets, provide important therapeutic information for clinicians who treat people who stut-
ter and who wish to assess outcomes. For instance, the OASES scores provide a sense of the degree of burden that people
who stutter may suffer, and thus provide clues as to future clinical directions for improving their clients’ wellbeing.
The male and female participants had similar scores on all four sections of the OASES. This finding concurs with previous
research, which suggests that both males and females are similarly impacted by stuttering (Koedoot et al., 2011; Yaruss &
Quesal, 2010). The finding that age did not significantly influence OASES scores is also consistent with previous research
(Kim & Yaruss, 2008; Koedoot et al., 2011; Yaruss & Quesal, 2010). This may suggest that stuttering can have a negative
impact on the lives of adults who stutter, regardless of whether the person who stutters is younger than or older than 60
years of age. Many people of all ages seem equally at risk of experiencing some negative impact due to stuttering. This
is interesting because in a study examining the relationship between age and personal spending on stuttering treatment,
age was indeed found to significantly impact spending, with adults younger than 60 years spending far more on speech
treatments (Blumgart, Tran, & Craig, 2010b).
The finding that those with higher stuttering frequency (%SS) had greater negative impact scores on the OASES domains
of ‘General Information’, and ‘Communication in Daily Situations’ and for the OASES Total score, is again of clinical interest.
Earlier research had reported an association between severity and impact of stuttering (Caruso, Chodzko Zajko, Bidinger, &
Sommers, 1994; DiLollo, Manning, & Neimeyer, 2003). However, other research has found contradictory findings (Blumgart,
Tran, & Craig, 2010; Smith, 1999; Smith & Kelly, 1997). In the present study, %SS was found to influence OASES scores, with
higher levels of stuttering frequency more likely to result in more severe impacts for ‘General Information’, ‘Communication
in Daily Situations’ and overall OASES scores. However, this finding was not strong and requires replication. The addition of an
OASES Australian normative dataset, places this instrument in a robust position to encourage further research from various
countries and communities worldwide. It is also hoped that the provision of the Australian OASES norms will encourage
research into the impact of stuttering on the daily lives of people who stutter.

Please cite this article in press as: Blumgart, E., et al. Australian normative data for the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s
Experience of Stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders (2012), doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2011.12.002
G Model
JFD-5477; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Blumgart et al. / Journal of Fluency Disorders xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 7

CONTINUING EDUCATION

Australian normative data for the Overall Experience of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering

QUESTIONS

(1) Quality of life considerations are useful in the assessment and treatment of stuttering because:
(A) Physical improvement is not the only treatment aim.
(B) Physical improvement is the only treatment aim.
(C) Quality of life considerations are multidimensional, and include many aspects of the person’s life that may be affected
by stuttering.
(D) Improved self-confidence is the treatment aim.
(2) The design of the OASES was based on:
(A) International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps.
(B) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
(C) Self-report measures of life quality.
(D) a, b and c.
(E) Both a and b.
(3) Which statement does not apply?
(A) Percent syllables stuttered is an objective measure of stuttering severity.
(B) A positive relationship has been reported between state anxiety and severity of stuttering.
(C) A positive relationship has been reported between trait anxiety and severity of stuttering.
(D) Severity of stuttering can be a predictor of treatment outcome.
(E) None of the above.
(4) Which major factors make the OASES an important measure in stuttering research and practice?
(A) A uniquely stuttering-specific QOL impact measure.
(B) Highlights several aspects of subjective wellbeing that describe stuttering behavior.
(C) Can be used as part of an assessment battery.
(D) Can be used in treatment outcomes research and practice.
(E) All of the above.
(5) Australian normative dataset revealed that:
(A) Younger adults obtained higher OASES scores.
(B) Older adults obtained higher OASES scores.
(C) Those with increased severity of stuttering obtained higher OASES scores.
(D) Both (a) and (c).
(E) Both (b) and (d).

References

Alderson, P. (2001). Down’s syndrome: Cost, quality and value of life. Social Science and Medicine, 53, 627–638.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1986). Clinical management of communicatively handicapped minority language populations. In O.
Taylor (Ed.), Treatment of communication disorders in culturally and linguistically diverse populations (pp. 187–195). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Australia’s population estimates. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. September quarter 2001–June quarter,
2006. http://www.abs.gov.au
Bebout, L., & Arthur, B. (1992). Cross-cultural attitudes toward speech disorders. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 45.
Blumgart, E., Tran, Y., & Craig, A. (2010a). Social anxiety disorder in adults who stutter. Depression and Anxiety, 27, 687–692.
Blumgart, E., Tran, Y., & Craig, A. (2010b). An investigation into the personal financial costs associated with stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 35,
203–215.
Bothe, A. K., Davidow, J. H., Bramlett, R. E., & Ingham, R. J. (2006). Stuttering treatment research 1970–2005. 1: Systematic review incorporating trial quality
assessment of behavioural, cognitive, and related approaches. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 321–341.
Bramlett, R. E., Bothe, A. K., & Franic, D. M. (2006). Using preference-based measures to assess quality of life in stuttering. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 49(2), 381–394.
Caruso, A. J., Chodzko-Zajko, W. J., Bidinger, D. A., & Sommers, R. K. (1994). Adults who stutter: Responses to cognitive stress. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 37, 746–754.
Costa, D., & Kroll, R. (2000). Stuttering: An update for physicians. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 162(13), 1849–1855.
Craig, A., Blumgart, E., & Tran, Y. (2009). The impact of stuttering on the quality of life in adult people who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 34, 61–71.
Craig, A., Hancock, K., Chang, E., McCready, C., Shepley, A., McCaul, A., et al. (1996). A controlled clinical trial for stuttering in persons aged 9–14 years.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 808–826.
Craig, A., Hancock, K., Tran, Y., Craig, M., & Peters, K. (2002). Epidemiology of stuttering in the community across the entire life span. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1097–1105.
Craig, A. R., Hancock, K., Tran, Y., Craig, M., & Peters. (2003). Anxiety levels in people who stutter: A randomized population study. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 46, 1197–1206.

Please cite this article in press as: Blumgart, E., et al. Australian normative data for the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s
Experience of Stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders (2012), doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2011.12.002
G Model
JFD-5477; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 E. Blumgart et al. / Journal of Fluency Disorders xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

DiLollo, A., Manning, W. H., & Neimeyer, R. A. (2003). Cognitive anxiety as a function of speaker role for fluent speakers and persons who stutter. Journal of
Fluency Disorders, 28, 167–186.
Finn, P., & Cordes, A. K. (1997). Multicultural identification and treatment of stuttering: A continuing need for research. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 22,
219–236.
Franic, D. M., & Bothe, A. K. (2008). Psychometric evaluation of condition-specific instruments used to assess health-related quality of life, attitudes, and
related constructs in stuttering. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 60–80.
Garratt, A. (2009). Patient reported outcome measures in trials. British Medical Journal, 338, 2597.
Holland, A., & Forbes, M. (1986). Nonstandardized approaches to speech and language assessment. In O. Taylor (Ed.), Treatment of communication disorders
in culturally and linguistically diverse populations (pp. 49–66). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Iverach, L., Jones, M., O’Brien, S., Block, S., Lincoln, M., Harrison, E., et al. (2009). The relationship between mental health disorders and treatment outcomes
among adults who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 34, 29–43.
Kagan, A., Simmons-Mackie, N., Rowland, A., Huijbregts, M., Shumway, E., McEwen, S., et al. (2008). Counting what counts: A framework for capturing
real-life outcomes of aphasia intervention. Aphasiology, 22(3), 258–280.
Kim, W., & Yaruss, J. S. (2008). The relationship between the impact of stuttering and age. In Poster presented at the Annual Convention of the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association Chicago, IL.
Klein, J. F., & Hood, S. B. (2004). The impact of stuttering on employment opportunities and job performance. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 29, 255–273.
Klompas, M., & Ross, E. (2004). Life experiences of people who stutter, and the perceived impact of stuttering on quality of life: Personal accounts of South
African individuals. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 29, 275–305.
Koedoot, C., Versteegh, M., & Yaruss, J. S. (2011). Psychometric evaluation of the Dutch translation of the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of
Stuttering for adults (OASES-A-D). Journal of Fluency Disorders, 36(3), 222–230.
Leith, W. R. (1988). Treating the stutterer with atypical cultural influences. St. Louis, the atypical stutterer New York: Academic Press.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5–55.
McCabe, R., & Priebe, S. (2002). Focussing on quality of life in treatment. International Review of Psychiatry, 14, 225–230.
Messenger, M., Onslow, M., Packman, A., & Menzies, R. (2004). Social anxiety in stuttering: Measuring negative social expectancies. Journal of Fluency
Disorders, 29, 201–212.
Pope, A. M., & Tarlov, A. R. (1991). Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Prins, D., & Ingham, R. J. (2009). Evidence-based treatment and stuttering – Historical perspective. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52,
254–263.
Shapiro, D. (1999). Stuttering intervention: A collaborative journey to fluency freedom. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Smith, A. (1999). Stuttering: A unified approach to a multifactorial, dynamic disorder. In N. Bernstein Ratner, & E. C. Healey (Eds.), Stuttering research and
practice: Bridging the gap (pp. 27–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, A., & Kelly, E. (1997). Stuttering: A dynamic, multifactorial model. In R. F. Curlee, & G. M. Siegel (Eds.), Nature and treatment of stuttering: New directions
(2nd ed., vol. 9–33, pp. 204–217). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Treon, M., Dempster, L., & Blaesing, K. (2006). MMPI-2/A assessed personality differences in people who do, and do not, stutter. Social Behavior and Personality,
34(3), 271–293.
World Health Organization. (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps: A manual of classification relating to the consequences
of disease. Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (1993). International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps: A manual of classification relating to the consequences
of disease (with forward). Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (2001). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Yaruss, J. S. (2001). Evaluating treatment outcomes for adults who stutter. Journal of Communication Disorders, 34, 163–182.
Yaruss, J. S. (2004). Documenting individual treatment outcomes in stuttering therapy. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 31,
49–57.
Yaruss, J. S. (2010). Assessing quality of life in stuttering treatment outcomes research. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 35, 190–202.
Yaruss, J. S., & Quesal, R. W. (2004). Stuttering and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF): An update. Journal of
Communication Disorders, 37, 35–52.
Yaruss, J., & Quesal, R. (2006). Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering (OASES): Documenting multiple outcomes in stuttering treatment.
Journal of Fluency Disorders, 31, 90–115.
Yaruss, J. S., & Quesal, R. W. (2008). OASES: Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering: Adult. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.
Yaruss, J. S., & Quesal, R. W. (2010). Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering (OASES). Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.
Yaruss, J. S., Quesal, R. W., & Murphy, B. (2002). National Stuttering Association Members’ opinions about stuttering treatment. Journal of Fluency Disorders,
27, 227–242.
Yaruss, J. S., Quesal, R. W., Reeves, L., Molt, L. F., Kluetz, B., Caruso, A. J., et al. (2002). Speech treatment and support group experiences of people who
participate in the National Stuttering Association. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 27, 115–134.

Elaine Blumgart is an experienced speech pathologist. She has recently completed her doctoral studies at the Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Northern
Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Yvonne Tran is a senior research fellow in the Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Northern Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney,
NSW, Australia. She is also a senior research fellow in the Health Technologies Centre, University of Technology, Sydney.

J. Scott Yaruss is Associate Professor and Director of MA/MS Programs in Speech-Language Pathology in the Department of Communication Science
and Disorders, at the University of Pittsburgh. He is co-author of the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering.

Ashley Craig is a Professor in the Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Northern Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
He has been actively involved in the research and treatment of stuttering over the past 20 years.

Please cite this article in press as: Blumgart, E., et al. Australian normative data for the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s
Experience of Stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders (2012), doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2011.12.002