Search

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]

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]

An evidence-based framework can be described as an empirically-driven, measurement-based, client-sensitive approach for selecting treatments. It is believed that using such a framework is more likely to result in a clinically significant outcome. For this paper, a clinically significant outcome was defined as a meaningful treatment change. It was suggested that there are at least three groups for whom a treatment’s outcome is meaningful. These groups include clinicians/clinical researchers, the clients, and relevant others who have some interest in the outcome (e.g., parents of a child who stutters). The meaning and measurement of clinical significance was discussed for each of these three groups, based on research from the behavioral stuttering treatment literature.Educational objectives: The reader will learn about and be able to (1) broadly define a clinically significant outcome and identify some of the groups who are interested in such an outcome and (2) describe how clinical significance has been evaluated in stuttering treatment within an evidence-based framework. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]