Identification of Children's Stuttered and Nonstuttered Speech by Highly Experienced Judges: Binary Judgments and Comparisons With Disfluency-Types Definitions

Contact author: Anne K. Bothe, Department of Communication Sciences and Special Education, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602. E-mail: abothe{at}uga.edu . Purpose: The purposes of this study were (a) to determine whether highly experienced clinicians and researchers agreed with each other...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of speech, language, and hearing research language, and hearing research, 2008-08, Vol.51 (4), p.867-878
1. Verfasser: Bothe, Anne K
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 878
container_issue 4
container_start_page 867
container_title Journal of speech, language, and hearing research
container_volume 51
creator Bothe, Anne K
description Contact author: Anne K. Bothe, Department of Communication Sciences and Special Education, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602. E-mail: abothe{at}uga.edu . Purpose: The purposes of this study were (a) to determine whether highly experienced clinicians and researchers agreed with each other in judging the presence or absence of stuttering in the speech of children who stutter and (b) to determine how those binary stuttered/nonstuttered judgments related to categorizations of the same speech based on disfluency-types descriptions of stuttering. Method: Eleven highly experienced judges made binary judgments of the presence or absence of stuttering for 600 audiovisually recorded 5-s speech samples from twenty 2- to 8-year-old children who stuttered. These judgments were compared with each other and with disfluency-types judgments in multiple interval-by-interval assessments and by using multiple definitions of agreement. Results: Interjudge agreement for the highly experienced judges in the binary stuttered/nonstuttered task varied from 39.0% to 89.1%, depending on methods and definitions used. Congruence between binary judgments and categorizations based on disfluency types also varied depending on methods and definitions, from 21.6% to 100%. Conclusions: Agreement among highly experienced judges, and congruence between their binary judgments of stuttering and categorizations based on disfluency types, were relatively high using some definitions and very low using others. These results suggest the use of measurement methods other than those based on disfluency types for quantifying or describing children's stuttering. They also suggest both the need for, and potential methods for, training to increase judges' accuracy and agreement in identifying children's stuttering. KEY WORDS: stuttering, disfluency types, reliability, judge training, behavioral measurement CiteULike     Connotea     Del.icio.us     Digg     Facebook     Reddit     Technorati     Twitter     What's this?
doi_str_mv 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/063)
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85704623</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A182338214</galeid><ericid>EJ803606</ericid><sourcerecordid>A182338214</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c525t-97bbeba667bc80ae6a638870bb537c20ccf5132131880582153b5dab21a2b2213</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFks9u1DAQxiMEomXhCUAo4lBAIq3txI6XW9kutFUFhxZxtBxnsvEqcYKdCPZpeFUmu0v5o0okhzgzv28yM_mi6Cklx5Rk2Qklc5ZkqZSvGCHyhIj09b3okHIukzkl7D6efxEH0aMQ1gQvmomH0QGVgkvC88Pox0UJbrCVNXqwnYu7Kl7Utik9uJchvh7GYQAPZaxdGX_sXLgNXPcApo6LTXxuV3WziZffe_AWnMHk5ViuILyN31mn_Wb72uJnwrbMomt77W3AavEXO9TxmQ1VM6Jyk9xsegjxGVTW2amf8Dh6UOkmwJP9cxZ9fr-8WZwnV58-XCxOrxLDGR-SeV4UUGgh8sJIokFogWPnpCh4mhtGjKk4TRlNqcS5JaM8LXipC0Y1KxjGZ9HRrm7vu68jhEG1NhhoGu2gG4OSPCeZYOl_QTFPuchTjuCLf8B1N3qHQyiWYqG5YBOU7KCVbkBZV3WD12YFDrxuOod7wPAplchj0xnyx3fweJfQWnOn4OgPQQ26GerQNeN2uX-DbAca34XgoVK9ty3-PUWJmvymJjepyU1q8ptCv6Ho-X7GsWih_C3Z-wuBZzsArWFu08tLSVKBBWbRm126Rg99sx5U2NoK-_TWrdQ6NLVXnKpMSVzqT2Tu6Pc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>232339625</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Identification of Children's Stuttered and Nonstuttered Speech by Highly Experienced Judges: Binary Judgments and Comparisons With Disfluency-Types Definitions</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Bothe, Anne K</creator><creatorcontrib>Bothe, Anne K</creatorcontrib><description>Contact author: Anne K. Bothe, Department of Communication Sciences and Special Education, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602. E-mail: abothe{at}uga.edu . Purpose: The purposes of this study were (a) to determine whether highly experienced clinicians and researchers agreed with each other in judging the presence or absence of stuttering in the speech of children who stutter and (b) to determine how those binary stuttered/nonstuttered judgments related to categorizations of the same speech based on disfluency-types descriptions of stuttering. Method: Eleven highly experienced judges made binary judgments of the presence or absence of stuttering for 600 audiovisually recorded 5-s speech samples from twenty 2- to 8-year-old children who stuttered. These judgments were compared with each other and with disfluency-types judgments in multiple interval-by-interval assessments and by using multiple definitions of agreement. Results: Interjudge agreement for the highly experienced judges in the binary stuttered/nonstuttered task varied from 39.0% to 89.1%, depending on methods and definitions used. Congruence between binary judgments and categorizations based on disfluency types also varied depending on methods and definitions, from 21.6% to 100%. Conclusions: Agreement among highly experienced judges, and congruence between their binary judgments of stuttering and categorizations based on disfluency types, were relatively high using some definitions and very low using others. These results suggest the use of measurement methods other than those based on disfluency types for quantifying or describing children's stuttering. They also suggest both the need for, and potential methods for, training to increase judges' accuracy and agreement in identifying children's stuttering. KEY WORDS: stuttering, disfluency types, reliability, judge training, behavioral measurement CiteULike     Connotea     Del.icio.us     Digg     Facebook     Reddit     Technorati     Twitter     What's this?</description><identifier>ISSN: 1092-4388</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1558-9102</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/063)</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18658057</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: ASHA</publisher><subject>Child ; Children &amp; youth ; Classification ; Clinics ; Comparative Analysis ; Definitions ; Diagnosis ; Humans ; Identification ; Interpersonal communication in children ; Interrater Reliability ; Judges ; Judgment ; Medical research ; Methods ; Observer Variation ; Researchers ; Speech ; Speech disorders ; Speech Perception ; Studies ; Stuttering ; Stuttering - diagnosis ; Stuttering - epidemiology ; Topography ; Training Methods ; Young Children</subject><ispartof>Journal of speech, language, and hearing research, 2008-08, Vol.51 (4), p.867-878</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2008 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Aug 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c525t-97bbeba667bc80ae6a638870bb537c20ccf5132131880582153b5dab21a2b2213</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c525t-97bbeba667bc80ae6a638870bb537c20ccf5132131880582153b5dab21a2b2213</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ803606$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18658057$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bothe, Anne K</creatorcontrib><title>Identification of Children's Stuttered and Nonstuttered Speech by Highly Experienced Judges: Binary Judgments and Comparisons With Disfluency-Types Definitions</title><title>Journal of speech, language, and hearing research</title><addtitle>J Speech Lang Hear Res</addtitle><description>Contact author: Anne K. Bothe, Department of Communication Sciences and Special Education, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602. E-mail: abothe{at}uga.edu . Purpose: The purposes of this study were (a) to determine whether highly experienced clinicians and researchers agreed with each other in judging the presence or absence of stuttering in the speech of children who stutter and (b) to determine how those binary stuttered/nonstuttered judgments related to categorizations of the same speech based on disfluency-types descriptions of stuttering. Method: Eleven highly experienced judges made binary judgments of the presence or absence of stuttering for 600 audiovisually recorded 5-s speech samples from twenty 2- to 8-year-old children who stuttered. These judgments were compared with each other and with disfluency-types judgments in multiple interval-by-interval assessments and by using multiple definitions of agreement. Results: Interjudge agreement for the highly experienced judges in the binary stuttered/nonstuttered task varied from 39.0% to 89.1%, depending on methods and definitions used. Congruence between binary judgments and categorizations based on disfluency types also varied depending on methods and definitions, from 21.6% to 100%. Conclusions: Agreement among highly experienced judges, and congruence between their binary judgments of stuttering and categorizations based on disfluency types, were relatively high using some definitions and very low using others. These results suggest the use of measurement methods other than those based on disfluency types for quantifying or describing children's stuttering. They also suggest both the need for, and potential methods for, training to increase judges' accuracy and agreement in identifying children's stuttering. KEY WORDS: stuttering, disfluency types, reliability, judge training, behavioral measurement CiteULike     Connotea     Del.icio.us     Digg     Facebook     Reddit     Technorati     Twitter     What's this?</description><subject>Child</subject><subject>Children &amp; youth</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Clinics</subject><subject>Comparative Analysis</subject><subject>Definitions</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Identification</subject><subject>Interpersonal communication in children</subject><subject>Interrater Reliability</subject><subject>Judges</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Speech</subject><subject>Speech disorders</subject><subject>Speech Perception</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Stuttering</subject><subject>Stuttering - diagnosis</subject><subject>Stuttering - epidemiology</subject><subject>Topography</subject><subject>Training Methods</subject><subject>Young Children</subject><issn>1092-4388</issn><issn>1558-9102</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFks9u1DAQxiMEomXhCUAo4lBAIq3txI6XW9kutFUFhxZxtBxnsvEqcYKdCPZpeFUmu0v5o0okhzgzv28yM_mi6Cklx5Rk2Qklc5ZkqZSvGCHyhIj09b3okHIukzkl7D6efxEH0aMQ1gQvmomH0QGVgkvC88Pox0UJbrCVNXqwnYu7Kl7Utik9uJchvh7GYQAPZaxdGX_sXLgNXPcApo6LTXxuV3WziZffe_AWnMHk5ViuILyN31mn_Wb72uJnwrbMomt77W3AavEXO9TxmQ1VM6Jyk9xsegjxGVTW2amf8Dh6UOkmwJP9cxZ9fr-8WZwnV58-XCxOrxLDGR-SeV4UUGgh8sJIokFogWPnpCh4mhtGjKk4TRlNqcS5JaM8LXipC0Y1KxjGZ9HRrm7vu68jhEG1NhhoGu2gG4OSPCeZYOl_QTFPuchTjuCLf8B1N3qHQyiWYqG5YBOU7KCVbkBZV3WD12YFDrxuOod7wPAplchj0xnyx3fweJfQWnOn4OgPQQ26GerQNeN2uX-DbAca34XgoVK9ty3-PUWJmvymJjepyU1q8ptCv6Ho-X7GsWih_C3Z-wuBZzsArWFu08tLSVKBBWbRm126Rg99sx5U2NoK-_TWrdQ6NLVXnKpMSVzqT2Tu6Pc</recordid><startdate>20080801</startdate><enddate>20080801</enddate><creator>Bothe, Anne K</creator><general>ASHA</general><general>American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)</general><general>American Speech-Language-Hearing Association</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CPGLG</scope><scope>CRLPW</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080801</creationdate><title>Identification of Children's Stuttered and Nonstuttered Speech by Highly Experienced Judges: Binary Judgments and Comparisons With Disfluency-Types Definitions</title><author>Bothe, Anne K</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c525t-97bbeba667bc80ae6a638870bb537c20ccf5132131880582153b5dab21a2b2213</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Child</topic><topic>Children &amp; youth</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Clinics</topic><topic>Comparative Analysis</topic><topic>Definitions</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Identification</topic><topic>Interpersonal communication in children</topic><topic>Interrater Reliability</topic><topic>Judges</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Speech</topic><topic>Speech disorders</topic><topic>Speech Perception</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Stuttering</topic><topic>Stuttering - diagnosis</topic><topic>Stuttering - epidemiology</topic><topic>Topography</topic><topic>Training Methods</topic><topic>Young Children</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bothe, Anne K</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Journal of speech, language, and hearing research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bothe, Anne K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ803606</ericid><atitle>Identification of Children's Stuttered and Nonstuttered Speech by Highly Experienced Judges: Binary Judgments and Comparisons With Disfluency-Types Definitions</atitle><jtitle>Journal of speech, language, and hearing research</jtitle><addtitle>J Speech Lang Hear Res</addtitle><date>2008-08-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>867</spage><epage>878</epage><pages>867-878</pages><issn>1092-4388</issn><eissn>1558-9102</eissn><abstract>Contact author: Anne K. Bothe, Department of Communication Sciences and Special Education, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602. E-mail: abothe{at}uga.edu . Purpose: The purposes of this study were (a) to determine whether highly experienced clinicians and researchers agreed with each other in judging the presence or absence of stuttering in the speech of children who stutter and (b) to determine how those binary stuttered/nonstuttered judgments related to categorizations of the same speech based on disfluency-types descriptions of stuttering. Method: Eleven highly experienced judges made binary judgments of the presence or absence of stuttering for 600 audiovisually recorded 5-s speech samples from twenty 2- to 8-year-old children who stuttered. These judgments were compared with each other and with disfluency-types judgments in multiple interval-by-interval assessments and by using multiple definitions of agreement. Results: Interjudge agreement for the highly experienced judges in the binary stuttered/nonstuttered task varied from 39.0% to 89.1%, depending on methods and definitions used. Congruence between binary judgments and categorizations based on disfluency types also varied depending on methods and definitions, from 21.6% to 100%. Conclusions: Agreement among highly experienced judges, and congruence between their binary judgments of stuttering and categorizations based on disfluency types, were relatively high using some definitions and very low using others. These results suggest the use of measurement methods other than those based on disfluency types for quantifying or describing children's stuttering. They also suggest both the need for, and potential methods for, training to increase judges' accuracy and agreement in identifying children's stuttering. KEY WORDS: stuttering, disfluency types, reliability, judge training, behavioral measurement CiteULike     Connotea     Del.icio.us     Digg     Facebook     Reddit     Technorati     Twitter     What's this?</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>ASHA</pub><pmid>18658057</pmid><doi>10.1044/1092-4388(2008/063)</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1092-4388
ispartof Journal of speech, language, and hearing research, 2008-08, Vol.51 (4), p.867-878
issn 1092-4388
1558-9102
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85704623
source MEDLINE; EBSCOhost Education Source
subjects Child
Children & youth
Classification
Clinics
Comparative Analysis
Definitions
Diagnosis
Humans
Identification
Interpersonal communication in children
Interrater Reliability
Judges
Judgment
Medical research
Methods
Observer Variation
Researchers
Speech
Speech disorders
Speech Perception
Studies
Stuttering
Stuttering - diagnosis
Stuttering - epidemiology
Topography
Training Methods
Young Children
title Identification of Children's Stuttered and Nonstuttered Speech by Highly Experienced Judges: Binary Judgments and Comparisons With Disfluency-Types Definitions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T07%3A02%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Identification%20of%20Children's%20Stuttered%20and%20Nonstuttered%20Speech%20by%20Highly%20Experienced%20Judges:%20Binary%20Judgments%20and%20Comparisons%20With%20Disfluency-Types%20Definitions&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20speech,%20language,%20and%20hearing%20research&rft.au=Bothe,%20Anne%20K&rft.date=2008-08-01&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=867&rft.epage=878&rft.pages=867-878&rft.issn=1092-4388&rft.eissn=1558-9102&rft_id=info:doi/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/063)&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA182338214%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=232339625&rft_id=info:pmid/18658057&rft_galeid=A182338214&rft_ericid=EJ803606&rfr_iscdi=true