Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273

The impact of stuttering on employment

opportunities and job performance
Joseph F. Klein∗,1 , Stephen B. Hood
Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, University of South Alabama,
UCOM 2000, Mobile, AL 36688-0002, USA

Received 25 September 2003; received in revised form 6 June 2004; accepted 13 August 2004

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact that stuttering has on job performance and
employability. The method involved administration of a 17-item survey that was completed by 232
people who stutter, age 18 years or older. Results indicated that more than 70% of people who stutter
agreed that stuttering decreases one’s chances of being hired or promoted. More than 33% of people
who stutter believed stuttering interferes with their job performance, and 20% had actually turned
down a job or promotion because of their stuttering. Results also indicated that men and minorities
were more likely to view stuttering as handicapping than were women and Caucasians. These findings
suggest that people who stutter believe stuttering to be handicapping in the workplace. The results
may be helpful for clinicians who work with people who stutter.

Educational objectives: The reader will be able to: (1) describe the impact that stuttering can have
on employability and job performance and (2) be better able to explain how factors such as gender,
ethnicity, and stuttering severity can impact the belief that stuttering is a handicapping condition.
© 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Stuttering; Employment; Job performance; Survey; Handicap

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 251 380 2600.

E-mail address: jfklein3@hotmail.com (J.F. Klein).
1 School of Education, The College of St. Rose, 432 Western Ave., Albany, NY 12203, USA (after 10 January

2005).

0094-730X/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2004.08.001
256 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273

The U.S. economy underwent drastic change during the last century. Ruben (2000) re-
ported that at the beginning of the twentieth century, 80% of Americans were employed in
jobs that depended on manual skills. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, 62% of
Americans made their living in jobs that depended on their communication skills. Ruben
stated that employers who do not require strong verbal communication skills still expect
their employees to be able to keep up in today’s fast-paced, communication-driven work-
place. For people who stutter, this expectation can have a tremendous impact on their quality
of life, especially with regard to employment opportunities and job satisfaction. Because
so many jobs now require good communication skills, many, if not most stutterers, may
be unable to attain the social status that accompanies the more prestigious occupations and
professions (Van Riper, 1982).
It is not uncommon to find people whose stuttering has negatively impacted their work
or even their entire choice of careers (Peters & Starkweather, 1989). Although there may
be several reasons stuttering negatively impacts one’s work and/or career choice, it is fair
to say that this is not simply because it takes people who stutter longer to say what they
need to say. According to Gilmore (1974), equal opportunity for the communicatively dis-
abled can be restricted in two ways: (1) by the negative attitudes of the non-disabled, and
(2) by the resulting negative attitudes the disabled may develop towards themselves. The
communicatively disabled, writes Gilmore, can experience rejection, penalty, and conse-
quent anxiety, frustration, and withdrawal. People who stutter, therefore, may be under-
employed because of both the attitudes of society as well as their own attitudes about their
speech.
It has been well documented that the general public has a less positive view of people
who stutter (Hulit & Wirtz, 1994). In a review of the literature, Lass et al. (1995) noted
that this has been found for a wide variety of groups, including college students, teach-
ers, school administrators, and speech-language pathologists, just to name a few. Nurses
have judged physicians who stuttered to be more afraid, tense, and nervous and to be less
mature, intelligent, secure, and competent than physicians who do not stutter (Silverman
& Bongey, 1997). College students have rated lawyers who stutter as being less in-
telligent, employable, competent and educated than lawyers who do not (Silverman &
Paynter, 1990). In a study of vocational rehabilitation counselors’ attitudes toward stutter-
ing, Hurst and Cooper (1983b) found that 50% of the counselors agreed with the statement
that most stutterers have psychological problems. Almost three-quarters (70%) of the vo-
cational rehabilitation counselors indicated that employers appear to discriminate on the
basis of speech problems alone and 78% indicated that stuttering appears to be vocationally
handicapping.
In the largest survey to date of employers’ attitudes toward stuttering, Hurst and Cooper
(1983a) found that many employers held negative attitudes toward people who stutter. In
their survey, 30% of employers agreed that stuttering interferes with job performance; 40%
agreed that stuttering interferes with promotion possibilities; 44% agreed that stutterers
should seek employment which requires little speaking; 85% agreed that stuttering decreases
employability to some degree; and only 9% of employers agreed that the stutterer should
be hired when given a situation in which two applicants are equally qualified in all other
respects. The authors concluded that stuttering is a significant vocationally handicapping
problem.
 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273 257

While the attitudes of those working with (and hiring) people who stutter are very
important, the attitudes of stutterers themselves may play an even greater role in their
employment and promotion possibilities. Considered together, the fact that people who do
not stutter possess relatively negative views of people who stutter and that individuals tend
to modify their self-concept over time so that it matches the perceptions that others have of
them (McCrosky, Daly, Richmond, & Falcione, 1977), it should not be a surprise if some,
if not many, adults who stutter possess low opinions regarding their abilities. Woods and
Williams (1976) stated that such a pervasive stereotype concerning stutterers’ personality
traits, rather than just their speech behaviors, may have a powerful influence upon the
stutterers’ self-evaluations and actions. For the person who stutters, this influence begins
early in life and continues into adulthood. Blood, Blood, Tellis, and Gabel (2001) found
that adolescents who stutter reported significantly poorer self-perceived communicative
competence and significantly higher levels of communicative apprehension than did their
nonstuttering peers. Once the adolescent reaches adulthood and enters the workforce, these
negative beliefs can have a powerful effect. Craig and Calver (1991) stated that it is not
uncommon for stutterers to work in positions below their potential as a result of either their
lack of self-confidence or their inability to communicate effectively. Empirical studies of
this issue are, however, relatively scarce.
Hayhow, Cray, and Enderby (2002) used a questionnaire to examine the impact that stut-
tering had on people’s lives. Examples that people who stutter gave included not choosing
the career they wanted, avoiding jobs that involved telephone work or verbal presentations,
and believing they would not be promoted because they stutter. Some respondents even re-
ported being discriminated against by being told not to try for promotion. The authors found
that only 12% of their participants felt that stuttering had no impact on their occupation.
Crichton-Smith (2002) explored the communicative experiences of fourteen adults who
stutter. Twelve of the 14 participants felt that stuttering affected their working lives in some
way. For at least some of the participants, their stuttering influenced their choice of work
and left them dissatisfied with their careers.
In a survey of 282 people who stutter, Rice and Kroll (1994) found that approxi-
mately 16% of people who stutter had been told that they would not be hired because
of their stuttering. More than half of the people who stutter agreed that their capabili-
ties had been misjudged by their supervisor because of their stuttering, and more than
one-third reported that their stuttering had led to negative performance appraisals at work.
The authors concluded that stuttering has a negative impact on performance evaluation
and promotion possibilities, and that stutterers face challenges and discrimination in the
workplace.
Clearly, more research is needed in this area. As Conture (1996) suggested, the as-
sessment of successful treatment needs to take into account the handicapping aspects of
stuttering, such as how treatment affected job history and communication efficiency in the
workplace. Thus, the primary purpose of the present study was to assess whether people
who stutter believe that stuttering has a negative impact on employment opportunities and
job performance. A secondary purpose, if findings indicate that people who stutter do per-
ceive that stuttering impacts employability and job performance, was to assess whether
factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, and stuttering severity significantly impact these
beliefs.
258 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273

1. Method

1.1. Participants

Participants of this study were 232 people who stutter, 18 years old and older, who
completed a 17-item survey that sought to assess the impact stuttering has on employ-
ment, promotion, and job performance from the point of view of the person who stutters.
Approximately 150 surveys were distributed at each of the 2000 and 2001 conventions
of the National Stuttering Association (NSA). In addition, 160 surveys were mailed to
NSA chapter leaders with instructions to distribute them to chapter members either in sup-
port group meetings or via mail. Those completing the survey were either dues-paying
members of the NSA or had at least minimal contact with the local or national organi-
zation. Participants were asked not to respond to the survey if they had previously com-
pleted it. Participants returned 71 of the 160 mailed surveys, yielding a 44% return rate.
An additional 161 surveys were gathered from the two conventions, totaling 232 usable
surveys.
The 232 questionnaires were returned from 165 adult males and 64 adult females (3
respondents chose not to specify their gender), yielding a gender ratio of 2.6 to 1. The
ages of the participants are displayed in Fig. 1. Participants included 190 Caucasians,
17 African Americans, 7 Asian Americans, 7 Hispanics, 3 Native Americans, 7 peo-
ple who chose “other” as their ethnicity, and 1 person who chose not to respond to this
question. Participants rated their stuttering severity as follows: 33 people (14%) viewed

Fig. 1. Age ranges of participants.

 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273 259

Fig. 2. Education-level of participants by ethnicity.

their stuttering as very mild; 72 people (31%) rated their stuttering as mild; 103 (44%)
rated their stuttering as moderate; 20 people (9%) viewed their stuttering as severe;
and only four people (<2%) believed they were very severe stutterers. For analysis, the
“very severe” stutterers were included in the “severe” group, creating a total of 24 severe
stutterers.
Participants were better educated than would be expected in a random sampling of people
who stutter (see Fig. 2). College or graduate degrees were held by 73% of the participants
and the majority of respondents (66%) held professional or managerial positions.

1.2. Survey

The survey to assess the impact of stuttering on employment opportunities and job
performance was based on the personal work experience of the first author, a person
who stutters, as well as previous surveys created by Hurst and Cooper (1983a, Employer
Attitudes Toward Stuttering Inventory) and Rice and Kroll (1994, Survey of Stutterers’
Perceptions of Challenges and Discrimination in the Workplace), and the literature review
in general. The first page of the survey (see Appendix A) consisted of identification infor-
mation, where participants were asked to give information such as gender, age, ethnicity,
education, and a self-rating of stuttering severity. The second page consisted of seven ques-
tions asking participants how they feel about the impact of stuttering in the workplace in
general (see Table 1a), and 10 questions concerning judgments about their personal expe-
riences in the workplace (see Table 1b). A five-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly
 260
Table 1
Percentage agreement of beliefs
Item Statement Level of agreement

J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273

Strongly agree (%) Agree (%) Neutral (%) Disagree (%) Strongly disagree (%) Mean (S.D.)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(a) Concerning questions 1–7: all people who stutter
1 Stuttering decreases an individual’s chances of being hired 16.9 54.1 14.3 10.8 3.9 2.31 (1.00)
2 Stuttering increases an individual’s chances of being fired 5.2 20.3 32.5 32.5 9.5 3.21 (1.04)
3 Stuttering interferes with promotion possibilities 16.5 53.0 16.1 11.3 3.0 2.31 (.98)
4 Stuttering interferes with job performance 4.8 31.1 22.8 25.9 15.4 3.16 (1.17)
5 The average person who stutters believes that his/her stuttering 16.5 48.9 21.2 10.8 2.6 2.34 (.96)
interferes with job performance
6 Employers believe that stuttering interferes with job performance 9.5 43.1 31.9 14.2 1.3 2.55 (.90)
7 If two equally qualified individuals, one who stutters and one 26.3 53.5 12.3 6.6 1.3 2.03 (.88)
who does not stutter, apply for a job, the employer will view the
non-stuttering person more favorably
(b) Concerning questions 8–17: respondent’s self beliefs
8 Stuttering has, at times, interfered with my job performance 17.7 51.1 6.5 17.3 7.4 2.45 (1.18)
9 I have, at times, sought employment which requires little speak- 12.2 37.8 8.7 26.1 15.2 2.94 (1.32)
ing
10 Overall, I would be better at my job if I did not stutter 16.0 29.9 14.3 22.9 16.9 2.95 (1.36)
11 I would be more likely to be promoted if I did not stutter 11.9 25.1 23.8 24.2 15.0 3.05 (1.25)
12 I would earn more money if I did not stutter 14.0 23.6 22.3 21.8 18.3 3.07 (1.32)
13 I would have a different job if I did not stutter 14.8 26.5 20.0 29.6 19.1 3.02 (1.35)
14 I would have a different career if I did not stutter 14.4 23.1 23.6 22.7 16.2 3.03 (1.30)
15 I would have a better job if I did not stutter 12.6 21.2 25.5 22.1 18.6 3.13 (1.29)
16 I would have a better career if I did not stutter 11.3 20.8 27.7 23.4 16.9 3.14 (1.25)
17 I have turned down a new job or promotion because I stutter 6.5 13.9 13.0 32.6 33.9 3.73 (1.24)
 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273 261

agree” (1) to “neutral” (3) to “strongly disagree” (5), was then analyzed using one-way
ANOVAs to evaluate the differences between beliefs of different subgroups of adults who
stutter to the 17 statements on the survey. A mean of 1, therefore, would indicate that
all participants “strongly agree” to a statement, while a mean of 5 would signify “strong
disagreement.”

1.3. Data analysis

The data from the usable surveys were entered into SPSS (2001) (Version 11.0.1) for
statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed to examine the identification in-
formation given by the respondents. A frequency analysis was used to determine the per-
centage of people who stutter who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” to each of each of the
17 statements (see Table 1). One-way ANOVAs were performed to examine if significant
group differences (between males and females, minorities and Caucasians, etc.) existed
in regard to the amount of agreement or disagreement to each statement. The signifi-
cance level was adjusted to .003 (.05/17) to compensate for the 17 ANOVAs calculated
and to reduce the likelihood of a Type I error. When needed, post-hoc analyses were
performed to locate precise direction of the differences when ANOVAs reached signifi-
cance. Because the analyses showed that the data were not always homogeneous, the Dun-
nett C, a test that does not assume equal variances among groups, was used for post-hoc
analysis.

2. Results

2.1. Stuttering in the workplace

In response to statements about the impact of stuttering in the workplace in general (see
Table 1a), the results indicated that people who stutter view stuttering to be a negative force
in issues of employment. Unless otherwise noted, agreement indicates that the respondents
selected “agree” or “strongly agree,” while disagreement indicates that the respondents
chose “disagree” or “strongly disagree.”
A very large percentage, 71% of all stutterers, believed that stuttering decreases an
individual’s chances of being hired (item 1), and 70% agreed that stuttering interferes
with promotion possibilities (item 3). Although 26% of the participants agreed that stut-
tering increases an individual’s chances of being fired (item 2), 42% disagreed with this
position.
More than one-third (36%) of the stutterers who participated in this study felt that stutter-
ing interferes with job performance (item 4). However, 65% agreed with the statement (only
13% disagreed) that the “average person who stutters believes his/her stuttering interferes
with job performance” (item 5). More than half (53%) agreed, and only 16% disagreed, that
employers believe that stuttering interferes with job performance (item 6). When presented
with the situation that if two equally qualified people apply for a job, one who stutters and
one who does not, 80% agreed, and only 8% disagreed, that the employer will judge the
non-stuttering person more favorably (item 7).
262 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273

2.2. Personal employment history and stuttering

When presented with statements about the impact of their own stuttering (see Table 1b),
the results again indicate that the participants believed stuttering played a major role in
their own work experience. More than two-thirds (69%) of all stutterers felt that stutter-
ing interfered with their job performance at least some of the time (item 8). In fact, 46%
indicated that they would be better at their job if they did not stutter (item 10). More
than one-third (37%) agreed, but 39% disagreed, with the idea that they would be more
likely to be promoted if they did not stutter (item 11). More than one-third (38%) be-
lieved they would earn more money if they did not stutter (item 12). In related questions,
41% agreed they would have a different job (item 13) and 34% believed they would have
a better job (item 14) if they did not stutter. More than one-third (38%) believed they
would have a different career if they did not stutter (item 15), and 32% believed they
would have a better career (item 16). One-fifth (20%) of the participants reported that
they had turned down a new job or promotion because of their stuttering (item 17), and
50% of stutterers indicated that they have sought employment requiring little speaking
(item 9).

2.3. Factors analyzed within the survey

To assess the interpretable factors analyzed within this survey, the dimensionality of
the 17 items was analyzed using maximum likelihood factor analysis. Eigenvalues were
used to determine the number of different factors to be used in the analysis. All factors
with eigenvalues greater than 1 were examined. Consequently, three factors were rotated

Table 2
Correlations between items and three factors on the impact of stuttering on employment
Item Factors

Different or better job Other’s evaluation Job performance

16 .878 .166 .159
15 .841 .132 .292
13 .841 .098 .099
14 .816 .192 −.031
12 .596 .244 .449
17 .483 .188 .195
9 .477 .216 .103
3 .265 .745 .207
1 .147 .715 .245
6 .200 .614 .232
2 .233 .587 .258
7 .141 .537 .187
10 .295 .183 .739
4 .116 .305 .630
8 .125 .302 .619
11 .417 .369 .485
5 .008 .315 .361
 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273 263

using a Varimax rotation procedure. The rotated solution, as shown in Table 2, yielded
three interpretable factors analyzed with this survey. The first factor identified by analysis
involved participants’ belief that they would have a different or better job if they did not
stutter (37.9% of item variance). A second factor involved the impact of other’s beliefs
about their abilities (12.0% of item variance). The third factor related to participants beliefs
about the impact of stuttering on job performance (4.5% of item variance). The factor
analysis also revealed that items 13, 14, 15, and 16, which examined the extent to which
individuals believed they would have a different or better job or career if they did not
stutter, were all strongly correlated, and therefore could be collapsed into one item in future
studies.

2.4. Differences between items

Paired-sample t-tests revealed that differences existed between the attitudes of in-
dividuals who stutter and what those individuals believed about the attitudes of oth-
ers. Results indicated that the participants were less likely to agree that stuttering in-
terferes with job performance (item 4) than would a hypothetical “average person
who stutters” (item 5), t (226) = 10.87. p = .001. Likewise, the respondents were more
optimistic than a hypothetical employer (item 6), t (227) = 7.76. p = .001. There was
no significant difference between what they believed the average person who stutters
(item 5) believed versus what an employer (item 6) would believe, t (230) = −2.77.
p = .006. People who stutter, therefore, believe that both the “average person who stut-
ters” and employers view stuttering to be more handicapping than they do them-
selves.

2.5. Differences among adults who stutter: influence of gender, ethnicity, education,
etc.

The previously mentioned Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” (1) to “neutral”
(3) to “strongly disagree” (5), was then analyzed using one-way ANOVAs to evaluate the
differences between beliefs of different groups of adults who stutter to the 17 statements on
the survey. Not all respondents chose to disclose information such as gender or ethnicity, and
some respondents chose to not answer all of the questions. Therefore, degrees of freedom
on individual questions vary slightly.

2.5.1. Gender
In all 17 comparisons of males and females, the females were less likely to believe
that stuttering would have an adverse effect on employability and job performance. Spe-
cific areas where differences were significant following Bonferroni adjustment (p < .003)
include items 1, 4, and 10 (see Table 1a and b). Females (M = 2.66, S.D. = 1.16) were more
likely than males (M = 2.16, S.D. = .90) to disagree that stuttering decreases employability,
F(1, 226) = 11.59, p = .001. Females (M = 3.76, S.D. = 1.07) were more likely than males
(M = 2.92, S.D. = 1.13) to disagree that stuttering interferes with job performance in general
F(1, 223) = 25.54, p = .001. Finally, females (M = 3.55, S.D. = 1.28) were more likely than
264 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273

males (M = 2.71, S.D. = 1.32) to disagree that they would be better at their job if they did
not stutter, F(1, 226) = 18.91, p = .001.

2.5.2. Ethnicity
Because of the small percentage of African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic
Americans, and Native Americans taking the survey, the data were collapsed into two
groups: Caucasians (190 participants, 82%) and non-Caucasians (42 participants, 18%).
The non-Caucasians viewed stuttering to be more of a problem in the workplace than did
the Caucasians in 14 of the 17 items. Two of these fourteen items (items 9 and 17 shown on
Table 1b) were significant at the .003 level. Non-Caucasians (M = 2.39, S.D. = 1.12) were
more likely than Caucasian participants (M = 3.06, S.D. = 1.33) to have sought employ-
ment which requires little speaking, F(1, 228) = 9.09, p = .003. Non-Caucasians (M = 3.15,
S.D. = 1.30) were also more likely than Caucasians (M = 3.86, S.D. = 1.20) to agree than they
have turned down a new job or promotion because of their stuttering, F(1, 228) = 11.67,
p = .001.
Due to the large difference in education between minorities and Caucasians among
the participants (see Fig. 2), two-way ANOVAs were performed to explore the possible
interaction of ethnicity and education for the items that reached significance. The interaction
between ethnicity and education was not significant for item 9, F(1, 224) = 2.33, p = .129.
The interaction was also not significant for item 17, F(1, 224) = 1.55, p = .214. Current
employment status was also not a factor with respect to ethnicity, F(7, 212) = 1.94, p = .065
for item 9 or for item 17, F(7, 212) = .95, p = .471.

2.5.3. Severity
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the perceptions of the partici-
pants based on their self-ratings of stuttering severity for each question. Only item
1 produced a significant difference (p < .003). Post-hoc testing (Dunnett-C procedure)
revealed that both moderate (M = 2.17, S.D. = .91) and severe stutterers (M = 1.75,
S.D. = .74) were more likely to agree that stuttering decreases an individual’s chances
of being hired than were mild stutterers (M = 2.69, S.D. = 1.08). Very mild stutterers
(M = 2.30, S.D. = .98), however, were not significantly different from moderate and severe
stutterers.

2.5.4. Education
All of the participants were high school graduates. There were 17 participants (7%)
who ended their education after graduating from high school, 45 (20%) who had some
college courses, 94 (41%) who attained a college degree, and 74 (32%) who possessed a
graduate degree. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine significant differences of
perceptions in those who had at least a college degree (college or graduate degree) (167
individuals, 73%) and those who did not (those with a high school education or those who
had taken some college courses) (62 individuals, 27%). In all areas reaching significance
(items 14, 15, and 16; p < .003), college graduates were more optimistic towards their
own stuttering than were non-graduates. College graduates (M = 3.27, S.D. = 1.29) were
less likely than non-college graduates (M = 2.67, S.D. = 1.17) to believe they would have
a better job, F(1, 226) = 9.06, p = .003, or a different career (college graduates M = 3.18,
 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273 265

S.D. = 1.31; non-college graduates: M = 2.60, S.D. = 1.18), F(1, 227) = 10.19, p = .002, or
a better career (college graduates: M = 3.30, S.D. = 1.25; non-college graduates: M = 2.67,
S.D. = 1.15), F(1, 227) = 11.74, p = .001, if they did not stutter.

2.5.5. Age
Ages, in years, were categorized in the survey as follows: 18–22, 23–29, 30–39, 40–49,
50–59, 60–69, and 70+. No differences were found between these age groups for any of the
17 ANOVAs.

2.5.6. Occupation
Participants marked the description of their current (or last, if currently unemployed or
retired) occupation: Clerical (15 participants, 7%), Labor (13, 6%), Managerial (27, 12%),
Professional (115, 50%), Sales (9, 4%), Skilled Labor (20, 9%), Student (16, 7%), or Other
(15, 7%). Only one significant difference was found (item 5). Post-hoc testing revealed
that those with managerial positions (M = 1.81, S.D. = .74) were more likely to agree that
the average person who stutters believes stuttering to interfere with job performance than
were students (M = 3.19, S.D. = 1.11), who were by far the most optimistic group for that
question.

2.5.7. Speech therapy

Although comparisons between groups are not appropriate due to the differences in group
size, it is interesting to note that a vast majority of the participants (193, 91%) reported that
they had been enrolled in speech therapy at one time.

2.6. Additional comments

Sixty-three of the 232 total participants (27%) responded to the open-ended question that
asked the participants to expand on their personal experiences and beliefs about stuttering
in the workplace. Themes included stories of overt discrimination, comments on how the
participants would be better at their jobs or would have chosen different careers if they
did not stutter, comments on what has helped them, such as having a positive attitude, and
comments about how stuttering has made them stronger people and even better employees.

3. Discussion

Yaruss (1998), in an article exploring the definitions of impairment, disability, and hand-
icap as they apply to stuttering, has provided a useful definition for “handicap” as it applies
to stuttering:

Disadvantages experienced by an individual, resulting from the stuttering impairment

and associated disabilities, or from reactions to them (exhibited either by the individual
or by those with whom the individual interacts) that limit the individual’s ability to
fulfill social, occupational, or economic roles that would otherwise be considered
normal and attainable for that individual. (p. 253)
266 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273

The results of this study indicate that people who stutter perceive their stuttering to be
a major handicap in the pursuit of their true vocation. More than 70% of stutterers believe
that stuttering interferes with their chances of being hired and promoted, and 69% agreed
that stuttering has hindered their job performance in the past. The vast majority of stutterers
believe that employers have negative views of people who stutter. In fact, people who
stutter believe that employers and “the average person who stutters” find stuttering to be
significantly more handicapping than they do themselves. These beliefs coincide with the
present findings that 50% of stutterers have sought employment requiring little speaking,
and 21% of stutterers have actually turned down a new job or a promotion because of their
stuttering.
One of the more interesting findings of this study is that women perceive stuttering
to be less handicapping than do men. Women felt that their stuttering had less impact
at work on all 17 statements, with significant differences on 3 of those 17. This finding
supports previous studies that exist on gender differences in stuttering. Non-stuttering
women tend to rate stutterers more favorably than do non-stuttering men (Burley &
Rinaldi, 1986; Dietrich, Jensen, & Williams, 2001). In addition, Silverman and Zimmer
(1979) found that females who stutter have a significantly higher level of self-esteem
than males who stutter and that, unlike the males, they did not consider themselves
handicapped. Silverman and Zimmer (1979) concluded that although the females who
stuttered did not consider themselves handicapped, both sexes believed that stuttering
interfered with the realization of their true potential. It appears that women, whether
they stutter or not, find stuttering to be less of a problem than do their male counter-
parts.
Another important finding was that non-Caucasians believe that stuttering plays a more
negative role in the workplace than do Caucasians. Non-Caucasians perceived stuttering
to be more occupationally handicapping on 14 of the 17 statements, 2 of which reached
significance. Other studies looking at ethnicity and disability have come to similar conclu-
sions. Balser (2000) found that minorities with disabilities were more likely to perceive
discrimination than were Caucasians with disabilities. Herbert and Cheatham (1988) stated
that the combination of being disabled and a minority creates a double bias towards that
individual.
In regard to stuttering severity, it is no surprise that severe and moderate stutterers were
more apt to believe that stuttering decreases one’s chances of being hired than were mild
stutterers. It is notable that very mild stutterers did not differ from the more severe stutterers
in this regard, or on any of the 17 statements about employment. It must be remembered
that these were people who considered themselves to be very mild and yet considered their
stuttering enough of a problem that they were involved in some way with a stuttering support
group. Perhaps very mild stutterers who do not feel the need to join a support group would
feel very differently.
Education also played a role in the way people viewed the impact of their stuttering.
Those who were more educated believed stuttering to be less handicapping. It is possi-
ble that education, in and of itself, leads to a greater understanding of one’s potential,
and opens doors which some may not have even dreamt of previously. It is also possible
that those who did not pursue more education did so because they felt limited by their
stuttering.
 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273 267

The written responses to the question asking the participants to expand on their previous
answers yielded many different themes as to how stuttering has impacted their lives. One
theme was discrimination, both overt and covert. A respondent wrote, “I have been turned
down from jobs because I stutter. In fact, they have told me so.” Another participant had
filed a lawsuit because of discrimination in 1991, and continues “to be overlooked despite
numerous awards and accolades the past few years.”
Other people who stutter have been told not to participate fully in their jobs because of
their stuttering. One man wrote that his job consists of the creation and presentation of group
projects, and that his boss is “hesitant” to let him make the actual presentation. Because
of that, “I don’t get the public credit from clients . . . I worry that this hurts my chances
of moving up the [corporate] ladder.” Another man echoed these words, and wrote that he,
too, was told directly that he was “no longer to participate [in presentations] because of my
speech.”
There was only one person who reported being overtly ridiculed on the job. A painter
who is now retired wrote that, “My foreman made a point of mimicking me a lot, in front
of the other men I worked with . . . it made me feel bad.”
Some participant responses reflected their feelings about being stuck in an unwanted job.
One man became an electrical engineer because he wanted a job wherein he could draw and
not have to talk much. He wrote, “Over the years, I felt my options were limited because
of my stutter and I felt trapped in my job.” Another man echoed these beliefs: “Once I got
a job, I did not want to leave because of my speech. I felt nervous about the interviewing
process and fear of going somewhere new where people would not be aware of my speech.”
A woman stated that she has an associate’s degree in early childhood development, and
would have gone on to get her teaching certificate, but did not feel that she was able to “get
up in front of a class of my peers.”
Many people commented on the impact that stuttering has on their performance at
work. A nurse wrote, “If I did not stutter, I would do a lot more teaching to my pa-
tients.” A sales manager wrote that his stuttering has made it harder “contacting sales
representatives, calling for information, calling colleagues, etc.” A woman stated, “If
I didn’t stutter as much in interviews or on the phone, I would feel better about me
overall.”
Finally, there was a group of respondents who either were able to reduce the negative
impact that stuttering has or felt that stuttering has even helped them in some ways. One
man wrote that although he believes stuttering “impedes” his job performance, he is able to
compensate for it by working harder and being better prepared than his colleagues. Positive
comments included, “Stuttering does not interfere with my life choices,” “Stuttering has
strengthened me to be persistent and to make something of myself,” and “[stuttering has]
led me to my current state in life, which is happy.” Unfortunately, these positive responses
were rare.

3.1. Clinical implications

The finding that stuttering is perceived to be an occupational handicap for people

who stutter has important implications for speech-language pathologists. Yaruss (2001)
is one among many clinicians who believes that more than just the behavioral as-
268 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273

pects of stuttering need to be dealt with when treating individuals who stutter. He
and his colleagues are developing assessment tools to evaluate the impact of stutter-
ing on their clients’ ability to pursue many quality of life issues, including social re-
lationships, emotional and physical well-being, and occupation. Including these factors
in the treatment goals and outcome measures may allow for better documentation of
success.
There are many ways clinicians can address the perceptions of both the client and those
with whom the client will communicate. Lass et al. (1995) emphasize the importance of
addressing both stereotypes and self-perceptions in therapy to make clients aware of the
potential impact of these beliefs. In a study by Schloss, Espin, Smith, and Suffolk (1987),
people who stutter were successfully trained to increase corrective feedback following
employer interruptions and pejorative statements and were able to make statements to set
the employer at ease and acknowledge positive behaviors made by the employer. Finally,
Collins and Blood (1990) found that when people who stutter acknowledge their stuttering,
they receive more favorable ratings on intelligence, personality, and appearance than do
stutterers who do not acknowledge their stuttering. Therapists need to use coping skills
such as these to allow their clients to be more effective and comfortable communicators in
the workplace.

3.2. Limitations and future research

The present study examined the impact of stuttering on employment opportunity and
job performance from the point of view of people who stutter. The population for this
study consisted solely of people with at least minimal contact with the National Stuttering
Association (NSA), a support group for people who stutter. Support groups often have a
very positive impact on the lives of people who stutter (Ramig, 1993). In a study by Yaruss
et al. (2002), 94% of NSA members stated that the Association had positively affected
their self-image and acceptance of themselves as people who stutter. On the other hand,
people who stutter who feel that their stuttering does not impact them negatively may
not join a support group in the first place. Therefore, the fact that all of the participants
of this survey had at least some contact with the NSA must be taken into account, as
the participants may have different views from people who stutter not affiliated with the
NSA.
The participants of this study were also better educated and had better jobs than could
be expected from a random sampling of people who stutter. In this study, it was found
that education level does impact the belief that stuttering is handicapping in the workplace.
Perhaps a sampling of people who stutter who hold the same education level as the regular
population would have different, and perhaps more pessimistic, views about stuttering and
employment.
Future research needs to assess if there are differences in the attitudes of stutterers who
do and who do not belong to a support group in regard to the effect that stuttering has in the
workplace. A replication of this study consisting of participants who better represent the
percentages of minorities would also improve generalization of findings. The impact that
level of education has on the beliefs of different ethnicities toward stuttering is also unclear
at this point.
 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273 269

The impact of speech therapy on perceptions of the workplace was another factor that
was not fully explored in this study. Finally, more research needs to examine the impact
of stuttering on the quality of life of people, especially minorities, who stutter and their
families.

4. Conclusions

This study found that people who stutter believe that stuttering has a negative impact on
their employability and job performance. Women were less likely than men, and Caucasians
were less likely than minorities, to believe that stuttering has a negative impact on these
issues. Many people who stutter also included narratives explaining how stuttering has
hampered their careers. These findings indicate that stuttering therapy for many adults who
stutter needs to include goals and outcome measures that specifically address the impact
that the stuttering is having on the client’s career.

CONTINUING EDUCATION
The impact of stuttering on employment opportunities and job performance
QUESTIONS

1. The participants in this study were recruited from:

a. The National Stuttering Association
b. The Stuttering Foundation of America
c. University speech and hearing clinics
d. Public school therapists
e. Intensive treatment programs
2. With respect to stuttering in the workplace, most participants believed that:
a. stuttering increases a person’s chances of being fired
b. stuttering interferes with job performance
c. stuttering decreases a person’s chances of being hired and promoted
d. two of the above are correct
e. three of the above are correct
3. With respect to their own personal employment and stuttering, the vast majority of
participants:
a. believed that they would earn more money if they did not stutter
b. felt that stuttering interfered with their job performance at least some of the time
c. believed that they would be more likely to be promoted if they did not stutter
d. believed that they would have a better job if they did not stutter
e. felt that they would have a different career if they did not stutter
4. The contention that survey research is difficult to conduct because it is hard to get a valid
sample of real-world subjects is supported by which of the following statements about
the participants in the present study:
a. they were better educated than might reasonably be anticipated
270 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273

b. more participants rated their stuttering as being severe or very severe

c. more participants held managerial or professional positions than might reasonably
be expected
d. two of the above statements are correct
e. three of the above statements are correct
5. Which of the following statements is false:
a. most people who stutter perceive their stuttering to be a major handicap in pursuit of
their true vocation
b. most people who stutter believe that stuttering interferes with their chances of being
hired and promoted
c. men perceive their stuttering to be less handicapping than do women
d. moderate and severe stutterers were more apt to believe that stuttering decreases one’s
chances of being hired than mild stutterers
e. the number of participants who had never received therapy was about the same as the
number who had received therapy

Acknowledgments

This study was completed by the first author under the direction of the second author
in partial fulfillment for doctoral candidacy in Communication Science and Disorders at
the University of South Alabama. We would like to thank Brenda Beverly and Scott Rubin
for their invaluable suggestions and encouragement, as well as Bill Gilley for his help with
statistical analysis. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Kenneth O. St. Louis and two
anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on the original manuscript. Finally,
we would like to thank the National Stuttering Association, its research committee, and
its members for their help with this project and their support of people who stutter in the
United States and around the world.
 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273 271

Appendix A

References

Balser, D. B. (2000). Perceptions of on-the-job discrimination and employees with disabilities. Employee Respon-
sibilities and Rights Journal, 12, 179–197.
Blood, G. W., Blood, I. M., Tellis, G., & Gabel, R. (2001). Communication apprehension and self-perceived
communication competence in adolescents who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26, 161–178.
272 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273

Burley, P. M., & Rinaldi, W. (1986). Effects of sex of listener and of stutterer on ratings of stuttering speakers.
Journal of Fluency Disorders, 11, 329–333.
Collins, C. R., & Blood, G. W. (1990). Acknowledgement and severity of stuttering as factors influencing non-
stutterers’ perceptions of stutterers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 75–81.
Conture, E. G. (1996). Treatment efficacy: Stuttering. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, S18–
S26.
Craig, A. R., & Calver, P. (1991). Following up on treated stutterers: Studies of perceptions of fluency and job
status. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 279–284.
Crichton-Smith, I. (2002). Communicating in the real world: Accounts from people who stammer. Journal of
Fluency Disorders, 27, 333–352.
Dietrich, S., Jensen, K. H., & Williams, D. E. (2001). Effects of the label “stutterer” on student perceptions. Journal
of Fluency Disorders, 26, 55–66.
Gilmore, S. I. (1974). Social and vocational acceptability of esophageal speakers compared to normal speakers.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 17, 599–607.
Hayhow, R., Cray, A. M., & Enderby, P. (2002). Stammering and therapy views of people who stammer. Journal
of Fluency Disorders, 27, 1–17.
Herbert, J. T., & Cheatham, H. E. (1988). Africentricity and the black disability experience: A theoretical orientation
for rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 19, 50–54.
Hulit, L. M., & Wirtz, L. (1994). The association of attitudes toward stuttering with selected variables. Journal of
Fluency Disorders, 19, 247–267.
Hurst, M. I., & Cooper, E. B. (1983). Employer attitudes toward stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 8, 1–
12.
Hurst, M. A., & Cooper, E. B. (1983). Vocational rehabilitation counselors’ attitudes toward stuttering. Journal of
Fluency Disorders, 8, 13–27.
Lass, N. J., Ruscello, D. M., Pannbacker, M., Schmitt, J. F., Middleton, G. F., & Schweppenheiser, K. (1995). The
perceptions of stutterers by people who stutter. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 47, 247–251.
McCrosky, J. C., Daly, J. A., Richmond, V. P., & Falcione, R. L. (1977). Studies of the relationship between
communication apprehension and self-esteem. Human Communication Research, 3, 269–277.
Peters, H. F. M., & Starkweather, C. W. (1989). Development of stuttering throughout life. Journal of Fluency
Disorders, 14, 303–321.
Ramig, P. R. (1993). The impact of self-help groups on persons who stutter: A call for research. Journal of Fluency
Disorders, 18, 351–361.
Rice, M., & Kroll, R. (1994). A survey of stutterers’ perceptions of challenges and discrimination in the workplace.
In C. W. Starkweather & H. F. M. Peters (Eds.), Stuttering: Proceedings of the First World Congress on Fluency
Disorders, II (pp. 559–562).
Ruben, R. J. (2000). Redefining the survival of the fittest: Communication disorders in the 21st century. Laryngo-
scope, 110, 241–245.
Schloss, P. J., Espin, C. A., Smith, M. A., & Suffolk, D. R. (1987). Developing assertiveness during employment
interviews with young adults who stutter. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 30–36.
Silverman, E. -M., & Zimmer, C. H. (1979). Women who stutter: Personality and speech characteristics. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research, 22, 553–564.
Silverman, F. H., & Bongey, T. A. (1997). Nurses attitudes toward physicians who stutter. Journal of Fluency
Disorders, 22, 61–62.
Silverman, F. H., & Paynter, K. K. (1990). Impact of stuttering on perception of occupational competence. Journal
of Fluency Disorders, 15, 87–91.
SPSS (2001). (Version 11.0.1) [Computer Software]. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Van Riper, C. (1982). The nature of stuttering (2nd ed.). Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Woods, C. L., & Williams, D. E. (1976). Traits attributed to stuttering and normally fluent males. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 19, 267–278.
Yaruss, J. S. (1998). Describing the consequences of disorders: Stuttering and the international classification
of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Journal of Speech, Langauge, and Hearing Research, 41, 249–
257.
Yaruss, J. S. (2001). Evaluating treatment outcomes for adults who stutter. Journal of Communication Disorders,
34, 163–182.
 J.F. Klein, S.B. Hood / Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2004) 255–273 273

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.

Joseph F. Klein is currently completing a doctorate in communication disorders from the University of South
Alabama. In January 2005, he will begin his career as an assistant professor at The College of Saint Rose in Albany,
New York. Joe has been a member of the National Stuttering Association since 1997.

Stephen B. Hood received his doctorate from the University of Wisconsin. He spent 35 years in academia before
retiring in 2004. His contributions included teaching, clinical supervision, and peer-reviewed scholarship. He has
edited several books for the Stuttering Foundation of America and has been active in the National Stuttering
Association.