Jian Li1, Hayley S Arnold2, Ann Beste-Guldborg3. 1. Evaluation and Measurement, Kent State University, United States. Electronic address: jli42@kent.edu. 2. Speech Pathology and Audiology, Kent State University, United States. 3. Communication Disorders, Minot State University, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study sought to assess whether protective service workers differ from people in non-protective services occupations in their intended reactions towards people who stutter (PWS). METHODS: Analyses were based on questionnaire responses regarding intended reactions toward PWS from 171 protective services workers and 2595 non-protective services workers in the United States. A propensity score matching procedure was used to identify a comparison group of non-protective services workers for the protective services workers. The matching covariate variables included age, gender, years of education, familiarity with PWS, and beliefs about PWS. RESULTS: Findings indicated that protective services workers had less helpful intended behavioral reactions and more negative affective reactions towards PWS than the matched non-protective services workers. Examination of the matching covariate variables in the larger sample also indicated that protective services workers had less accurate beliefs about PWS compared to respondents not in protective services professions. CONCLUSION: Less favorable intended reactions of protective services workers toward PWS indicate a need for protective services workers to receive training in best practices when interacting with PWS.
PURPOSE: This study sought to assess whether protective service workers differ from people in non-protective services occupations in their intended reactions towards people who stutter (PWS). METHODS: Analyses were based on questionnaire responses regarding intended reactions toward PWS from 171 protective services workers and 2595 non-protective services workers in the United States. A propensity score matching procedure was used to identify a comparison group of non-protective services workers for the protective services workers. The matching covariate variables included age, gender, years of education, familiarity with PWS, and beliefs about PWS. RESULTS: Findings indicated that protective services workers had less helpful intended behavioral reactions and more negative affective reactions towards PWS than the matched non-protective services workers. Examination of the matching covariate variables in the larger sample also indicated that protective services workers had less accurate beliefs about PWS compared to respondents not in protective services professions. CONCLUSION: Less favorable intended reactions of protective services workers toward PWS indicate a need for protective services workers to receive training in best practices when interacting with PWS.