Search

There is no empirical basis for determining goals for stuttering treatment. One approach that might resolve this issue is to systematically investigate persons who claim to have recovered from stuttering without the assistance of treatment. However, critical methodological and conceptual issues must be overcome first in order to assure these persons had a valid stuttering problem and that their recovery was independent of treatment. This study examined a validation procedure for solving these issues based on the combination of two methods: independent verification and self-reports. Forty-two subjects participated: 14 adults who recovered from stuttering without assistance, 14 adults with persistent stuttering, and 14 adults who were normally fluent speakers. For the independent verification, a Speech Behavior Checklist was administered to 42 individuals familiar with the recovered subjects' past speech and the other subjects' current speech. Results indicated that persons who knew the recovered subjects when they used to stutter recalled speech behaviors consistent with subjects who still stuttered, but not the same as speech behaviors consistent with subjects who never stuttered. These findings were supported by an objective analysis of the recovered subjects' descriptions of their past stuttering. Furthermore, a content analysis of subjects' self-reports indicated that recovery was independent of treatment. KEY WORDS: spontaneous recovery, self-report, self-directed, cross-validation, treatment outcome

The efficacy of stuttering treatment has been a contentious issue in recent years. Two issues of primary concern include the treated stutterer's abnormal speech quality and the problem of continually self-monitoring fluency skills. One approach to addressing these issues is to obtain stutterers' self-ratings of speech quality and levels of speech monitoring. However, the reliability and validity of such self-ratings need to be assessed before they are suitable for use in stuttering treatment. The present study investigated one method of estimating the reliability and validity of stutterers' self-ratings of how natural their speech sounds (speech naturalness), and how natural they feel about the amount of attention they are paying to the way they are speaking (feel naturalness). Twelve adult stutterers were instructed to self-rate the speech and feel naturalness of their speech under a variety of rhythmic stimulation conditions across repeated rating occasions. With some qualifications, the results showed that stutterers were relatively consistent and valid self-raters of speech quality and levels of speech monitoring.

The study reported in this paper was designed to replicate and extend the results of an earlier study (Ingham, Cordes, & Gow, 1993) that investigated time-interval judgments of stuttering. Results confirmed earlier findings that interjudge agreement is higher for these interval-recording tasks than has been previously reported for event-based analyses of stuttering judgments or for time-interval analyses of event judgments. Results also confirmed an earlier finding that judges with intrajudge agreement levels of 90% or better show higher interjudge agreement than judges with lower intrajudge agreement scores. This study failed to find differences between audiovisual and audio-only judgment conditions; between relatively experienced and relatively inexperienced student judges; and, most importantly, between the judgments made, and the agreement levels achieved, by judges from two different clinical research settings. The implications of these findings for attempts to develop a reliable measurement method for stuttering are discussed.

Purpose: Peer-reviewed research is the typical pathway for research to be implemented into clinical practice. However, the Internet, digital technology, and social media have introduced significant changes for how this information is shared, publicized, evaluated, and utilized. Some of these changes are positive, such as rapid distribution of needed information, whereas others are negative, such as widespread dissemination and influence of fake news and misinformation. The purpose of this editorial is to provide a brief look at how these negative changes have affected the helping professions. Conclusion: In view of the wide-ranging challenges and influences described here, this editorial is a call for action to our researchers, educators, and clinicians to examine how social media has impacted the scientific practice of communication sciences and disorders. It concludes with a series of questions and examples for how this examination might unfold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated the modification of speech naturalness during stuttering treatment. It systematically replicated an earlier study (Ingham & Onslow, 1985) that demonstrated that unnatural-sounding stutter-free speech could be shaped into more natural-sounding stutter-free speech by using regular feedback of speech-naturalness ratings during speaking tasks. In the present study, the same procedure was used with three persons who stutter--2 adolescent girls and 1 adult man--during rhythmic stimulation conditions. The two adolescent participants spoke only English, but Spanish was the first and English the second language (ESL) of the adult participant. For the 2 adolescents, it was demonstrated that their unnatural-sounding rhythmic speech could be shaped to levels found among normally fluent speakers without losing the fluency-inducing benefits of rhythmic speech. The findings indicate that speech-naturalness feedback may be a powerful procedure for overcoming a problematic aspect of rhythmic speech treatments of stuttering. However, it was not possible to deliver reliable speech-naturalness feedback to the adult ESL speaker, who also displayed a strong dialect. The study highlights the need to find strategies to improve interjudge agreement when using speech-naturalness ratings with speakers who display a strong dialect. KEY WORDS: stuttering, rhythmic stimulation, speech naturalness, treatment, The search for ways to improve speech quality during or after stuttering treatment continues to be an important clinical issue. The issue is usually related to treatments that use the [...]

Critical thinking is increasingly recognized as an essential knowledge and skill for the helping professions. Yet, our pedagogical literature has provided infrequent guidance on how instructors can help students to understand what "critical thinking" means or how it might contribute to their professional lives. Therefore, the purpose of this tutorial is to provide guidelines on how instructors might teach future practitioners to become critical thinkers. The main topics address an instructional definition of critical thinking, the basic knowledge and skills that comprise critical thinking, a broad view of instructional approaches, and a summary of developmental milestones of adult critical thinkers. Specific teaching strategies from instructors who have hands-on experience with guiding their students to become critical thinkers are included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current evidence suggests that young children who recover from stuttering are essentially stutter-free. However, there is no evidence to indicate if their speech is perceptually indistinguishable from normally fluent peers or whether they retain perceptually unusual speech. One important example of recovery from stuttering is children who have recovered without receiving formal treatment. An investigation was conducted to determine if the speech of these children is perceptually different from the speech of children who have never stuttered. Speakers consisted of 10 preschool and early school-age children documented as recovered from stuttering without benefit of formal treatment. In a series of studies they were compared with 10 children who had never stuttered. Three groups of judges - sophisticated, unsophisticated, and experienced - were separately asked, using videotaped speech samples of the children, to decide which samples were from children who used to stutter. Results revealed that the children who recovered from stuttering were perceptually indistinguishable from the normal controls. The same result was obtained regardless of whether the samples were presented in paired-stimulus or single-stimulus mode. Two of the groups of judges were also instructed to rate the speech naturalness of the speech samples. The speakers were not distinguished on this measure either. Methodological issues and the implications of the findings are discussed. KEY WORDS: spontaneous recovery, speech naturalness, speech fluency

The purpose of this study was to determine if the speech of adults who self-judged that they were recovered from stuttering without the assistance of treatment is perceptually different from that of adults who never stuttered. Fifteen adult speakers verified as persons who had recovered from a valid stuttering problem without the assistance of treatment were compared with 15 adult speakers verified as persons with normally fluent speech. Judges viewed videotaped speech samples of all speakers and were instructed to decide whether a speaker used to stutter or never stuttered. A separate group of judges rated the same samples for speech naturalness. Various speech behavior measures were also obtained. Results revealed that the speech of speakers who used to stutter was perceptually different from that of speakers who never stuttered. This difference was correlated with unnatural sounding speech and a high frequency of part-word repetitions. KEY WORDS: spontaneous recovery, treatment outcome, speech naturalness, self-report, speech fluency

This study investigated the effect of speech dialect on listeners' speech naturalness ratings by systematically replicating Martin, Haroldson, and Triden's (1984) study using three groups of speaker samples. Two groups consisted of speakers with General American dialect-one with persons who stutter and the other with persons who do not stutter. The third group also consisted of speakers who do not stutter but who spoke non-General American dialect. The results showed that speech naturalness ratings distinguished among the three speaker groups. The ' variables that appeared to influence speech naturalness ratings were type of dialect, speech fluency, and speaking rate, though they differed across speaker groups. The findings also suggested that strength of speech dialect may be a scaleable dimension that judges can rate with acceptable levels of reliability. Dialect may also be an important factor that needs to be incorporated or controlled within systems designed to train speech naturalness ratings. It may also be an important factor in determining the extent to which stuttering treatment produces natural sounding speech. KEY WORDS: speech naturalness, stuttering, reliability, multicultural, assessment

Purpose: This prologue serves to introduce a research forum composed of studies that address the topic of stuttering in school-age children and adolescents. Researchers are encouraged to continue to build the knowledge base that sustains evidence-based practice in this area. Method: The nature of stuttering as it evolves from early childhood into the school years is briefly described. Beyond the preschool years, children are unlikely to spontaneously recover from stuttering, and they often go on to suffer negative consequences, academically and socially, because of their disorder. If they are to overcome or manage their stuttering successfully, school-age children and adolescents require high-quality treatment. Three data-based studies that address the topic of stuttering in school-age children or adolescents are described, the ongoing need for empirical evidence regarding the management of stuttering is emphasized, and several issues relevant to future studies in this area are discussed. Conclusion: Progress has occurred in the management of stuttering in school-age children and adolescents. Nevertheless, important questions remain unanswered concerning the most effective techniques and strategies to use in helping students who stutter achieve more fluent and natural-sounding speech in their quest to become more confident and effective communicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: I respond to Kamhi's (2011) conclusion in his article "Balancing Certainty and Uncertainty in Clinical Practice" that rational or critical thinking is an essential complement to evidence-based practice (EBP). Method: I expand on Kamhi's conclusion and briefly describe what clinicians might need to know to think critically within an EBP profession. Specifically, I suggest how critical thinking is relevant to EBP, broadly summarize the relevant skills, indicate the importance of thinking dispositions, and outline the various ways our thinking can go wrong. Conclusion: I finish the commentary by suggesting that critical thinking skills should be considered a required outcome of our professional training programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To respond to several of the issues raised in J. Kalinowski, T. Saltuklaroglu, A. Stuart, and V. K. Guntupalli's (2007) critique of our previous article (P. Finn, A. K. Bothe, & R. E. Bramlett, 2005). Method: Information is provided to refute criticisms raised by Kalinowski et al. about the Finn et al. article, including with respect to that report 's methodology, previous research about fluency-inducing conditions in stuttering, and the SpeechEasy device. Conclusions: Available data show that delayed auditory feedback, frequency-altered feedback, masking, and chorus reading can result in reduced stuttering for some speakers, and the inconsistencies and variability in available reports suggest that further careful and creative research could be very valuable. Neither the information about the SpeechEasy provided by its developers, however, nor the manner in which that information has been presented and discussed by its developers rises to the standards of a science-based clinical service discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this tutorial is to describe 10 criteria that may help clinicians distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific treatment claims. The criteria are illustrated, first for considering whether to use a newly developed treatment and second for attempting to understand arguments about controversial treatments. Method: Pseudoscience refers to claims that appear to be based on the scientific method but are not. Ten criteria for distinguishing between scientific and pseudoscientific treatment claims are described. These criteria are illustrated by using them to assess a current treatment for stuttering, the SpeechEasy device. The authors read the vailable literature about the device and developed a consensus set of decisions about the 10 criteria. To minimize any bias, a second set of independent judges evaluated a sample of the same literature. The criteria are also illustrated by using them to assess controversies surrounding 2 treatment approaches: Fast ForWord and facilitated communication. Conclusions: Clinicians are increasingly being held responsible for the evidence base that supports their practice. The power of these 10 criteria lies in their ability to help clinicians focus their attention on the credibility of that base and to guide their decisions for recommending or using a treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]