Purpose: To evaluate the psychometric properties of disease-specific quality of life (QOL) instruments in stuttering. Methods: A comprehensive search for stuttering instruments was conducted using (1) a literature review of PsychInfo, Medline, Social Science Citations Index, Current Contents, and Health Star; (2) web search engines for the American Speech-Language Hearing Association and Google; (3) referenced stuttering instruments listed in articles; and (4) personal files. Instruments were included in the study for evaluation if there was at least one publication using the instrument including psychometric data, in addition to instrument availability. The eight domains considered in the instrument evaluation were: item information, versatility, practicality, breadth (social, role, physical, mental and communication) and depth (floor and ceiling effects), reliability (internal consistency and test-retest), validity (discriminate and convergent), and responsiveness. Results: Of the 18 QOL instruments identified, adequate data was available to evaluate eight based on study criteria. The eight stuttering-specific QOL metrics were Stutterer's Self Ratings of Reactions to Speech Situations (ARSF), Erickson's scale of communication attitudes (S-scale), shortened S-scale (S-24), Communication Attitude Test – English and revised (CAT and CAT-R), Perceptions of Stuttering Inventory (PSI) Speech Situations Checklist (SSC) and its shortened version (Shortened-SSC). Item information was only available for S-scale and S-24. All instruments evaluated were designed for use in adults except for A-19 and CAT series. PSI can be used in adults or adolescents. Only S-24 and the S scale satisfied breadth criteria. Depth information was lacking for all instruments evaluated. Of the eight instruments S-24 fared the best being the most widely used and satisfying six of eight criteria (omitting depth and reliability), however due to inadequate reliability (coefficients < 0.9) authors do not recommend S-24 for individual decision-making. Conclusion: None of the eight metrics satisfied all the study criteria and as a result none can be recommended for use in individual decision making. However, if used for group level decision making the authors recommend the use of S-24 which would then meet most of the study criteria reporting adequate or better performance on 7 of the 8 criteria assessed (omitting instrument depth), in conjunction with a generic QOL instrument.