A comparison of verbal fluency and working memory performance in children with and without stuttering aged 8 to 10

Purpose: The primary aim of this study is to compare mean utterance length, verbal and written fluency (semantic, phonemic, alternating), and working memory performance in children aged 8–10 with and without stuttering. Method: A total of 72 children (36 with stuttering, 36 without stuttering) were included in the study, with consideration for age and gender balance (mean age = 8.99 ± 0.49; 25% girls, 75% boys). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and the Stuttering Severity Instrument were used for screening purposes. For participants who met the inclusion criteria, mean length of utterance was calculated using the "Where's the Frog?" story. In addition, the Working Memory Scale and the Verbal Fluency Test (administered both verbally and in written form) were applied to all participants. Between-group comparisons were analyzed using independent samples t-tests, and correlations were assessed using Pearson correlation analysis. Results: Children with stuttering had significantly lower mean utterance length and written alternating fluency scores compared to children without stuttering (p <0.001). In phonemic fluency, total fluency, and several working memory subtests—backward digit span, first word recall, odd-one-out, spatial recall, verbal and visual working memory, and overall working memory—the stuttering group also scored statistically lower (p <0.05). No significant differences were found between the groups in verbal alternating fluency, verbal semantic fluency, written semantic fluency, digit recall, word recall, nonsense word recall, pattern matrix, block recall, short-term memory subtests, or visual memory measures (p> 0.05). Conclusion: The findings indicate that children who stutter may particularly experience difficulties in phonemic and alternating fluency, as well as working memory processes. These differences underscore the importance of conducting detailed cognitive assessments in addition to fluency evaluations and emphasize the need for individualized intervention plans.