Content area
Full Text
Purpose: This case study demonstrates the application of an assessment protocol for differential diagnosis of psychogenic stuttering, neurogenic stuttering, developmental stuttering, and malingering.
Method: A male in his late 30s, accused of armed robbery, was evaluated for stuttering at the request of his defense attorney. The speech assessment included 4 main sections: collection of speech samples, observation in multiple speaking conditions, evaluation of communication attitudes, and consideration of case history and background information.
Results: The defendant stuttered severely in all speaking conditions. He demonstrated typical stuttering loci and consistency, but no adaptation. Communication attitudes were typical of people who stutter, but steady, direct eye contact was atypical. His statements about his speech conflicted with reports of outside witnesses.
Conclusions: Characteristics were consistent with developmental stuttering and partial malingering. Both psychogenic and neurogenic forms of stuttering were suspected, but mixed results were largely unsupportive. Valuable protocol elements included speech sampling under multiple speaking conditions, careful examination of case history information, and indirect tests of malingering. Further knowledge and research are warranted to improve processes of differential diagnoses among subtypes of developmental, psychogenic, and neurogenic forms of stuttering as well as malingering.
Key Words: fluency, stuttering, malingering, forensic assessment
Only a few published reports are available describing forensic application of knowledge related to stuttering and fluency disorders. A body of information concerning processes and procedures for conducting forensic fluency assessment is important because such cases put to the test our criteria for differential diagnosis, especially to distinguish possible malingering. Malingering, or feigning, occurs when a person is faking symptoms of illness or incapacity, usually for purposes of personal gain. So far, it appears that speech-language clinicians may have encountered the term forensic only infrequently in reference to the application of scientific knowledge to legal cases.
Two published accounts of forensic fluency assessment reported cases in which a person who stuttered was the subject of a criminal investigation. Shirkey (1987) described a case in which a 33-year-old male was accused of molestation in Albuquerque, NM. The defendant had been acquitted previously because he stuttered and none of the victims had reported any stuttering by the attacker. When the defendant was arrested for a repeat offense, Shirkey was asked to assess the defendant's speech and address the question...