{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02639019792648445, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001885014137606032, 'mean_word_length': 5.718354430379747, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Professors' Perceptions and Evaluations of Students Who Do and Do Not Stutter Following Oral Presentations.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptual ratings and performance evaluations of students who do and do not stutter by professors who require oral presentations. Additionally, this study sought to investigate the influence of behaviors related to communication competence on perceptual and evaluative ratings.


METHOD
One hundred fifty-eight college instructors who require oral presentations in their classes participated in this study. Participants viewed one video of four possible randomized conditions: (a) presence of stuttering + low communication competence, (b) absence of stuttering + low communication competence, (c) presence of stuttering + high communication competence, and (d) absence of stuttering + high communication competence. Participants evaluated student performance against a standardized rubric and rated the student along 16 personality traits.


RESULTS
Results of separate 2 × 2 analyses of variance revealed professors' view and evaluate students presenting with high communication competence more positively overall, regardless as to whether stuttering is present or not. Significant interactions between fluency (i.e., presence vs. absence of stuttering) and communication competence (i.e., high vs. low) were found for negative personality traits, as well as delivery evaluation scores. The video for which the student stuttered and presented with low communication competence was rated more positively than the video for which the student did not stutter and presented with low communication competence.


CONCLUSIONS
Professors perceive and evaluate students who stutter differently from their nonstuttering peers, and those ratings are moderated by levels of communication competence. High-communication-competence behaviors improved perceptual and evaluation scores; however, in the presence of low-communication-competence behaviors, professors overcorrect in the form of positive feedback bias, which may have negative long-term academic consequences.