Adults who stutter report lower resilience-related protective scores in cross-sectional study

A cross-sectional comparative study of 140 adults found no statistically significant differences between people who stutter and people who do not stutter across nine cognitive emotion regulation strategy subscales, while the group reporting stuttering had lower scores on several resilience-related protective factors. The findings, summarized in the study abstract, describe measured group differences and within-group associations rather than evidence that the groups are equivalent or that one factor causes another.

The sample included 69 adults who self-identified as people who stutter and 71 who did not, with participants aged 18 to 65 years. Stuttering status was based on self-identification without independent clinical confirmation. Participants completed the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire and the Protective Factors for Resilience Scale. The researchers compared sex, age and education between groups, used independent-samples t tests or Mann–Whitney U tests for questionnaire outcomes, and calculated effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals. Within-group relationships were examined with Pearson or Spearman correlations, with Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate correction applied separately to 36 subscale-level correlations in each group.

The groups did not differ significantly in sex distribution, age or education. No statistically significant between-group differences were detected for any of the nine CERQ subscales, and the corresponding effect sizes were small; the abstract does not establish equivalence between the groups. People who stutter reported lower Personal, Peer, Family and Total Protective Factors for Resilience Scale scores, with small-to-moderate rank-biserial effects. After false discovery rate correction, 12 positive associations involving positive refocusing, refocus on planning and positive reappraisal remained statistically significant within the group reporting stuttering. No correlations remained significant in the group not reporting stuttering.

These results indicate that the study detected lower reported resilience-related protective resource scores among participants who stutter, alongside no detected differences in measured cognitive emotion regulation strategies. The design and analysis do not demonstrate that resilience resources cause emotion regulation strategies, that stuttering causes lower scores, or that the two constructs have different correlation strengths across groups. The cross-sectional design, exploratory analysis, modest sample size and reliance on self-identification of stuttering status limit interpretation. The available source provides the study abstract rather than the complete article, so this report is limited to the findings and methods stated there.

Subject of Research: Cross-sectional comparison of cognitive emotion regulation and resilience-related protective factors in adults who stutter

Article Title: Cognitive emotion regulation strategies and resilience-related protective factors in persons who stutter: a cross-sectional comparative and correlational study

Article References: Alpüran Kocabıyık, N., Erol, E., & Sarı Sülüker, A. (2026). Cognitive emotion regulation strategies and resilience-related protective factors in persons who stutter: a cross-sectional comparative and correlational study. BMC Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05815-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s40359-026-05815-5

Keywords: stuttering, adults, emotion regulation, resilience, protective factors, cross-sectional study, psychology, questionnaire, correlation, Cognitive, emotion, regulation