Search

Purpose: (1) To survey the employed techniques and the reasons/occasions which adults who had recovered from stuttering after age 11 without previous treatment reported as causal to overcome stuttering, (2) to investigate whether the techniques and causal attributions can be reduced to coherent (inherently consistent) dimensions, and (3) whether these dimensions reflect common therapy components., Methods: 124 recovered persons from 8 countries responded by SurveyMonkey or paper-and-pencil to rating scale questions about 49 possible techniques and 15 causal attributions., Results: A Principal Component Analysis of 110 questionnaires identified 6 components (dimensions) for self-assisted techniques (Speech Restructuring; Relaxed/Monitored Speech; Elocution; Stage Performance; Sought Speech Demands; Reassurance; 63.7% variance explained), and 3 components of perceived causal attributions of recovery (Life Change, Attitude Change, Social Support; 58.0% variance explained)., Discussion: Two components for self-assisted techniques (Speech Restructuring; Elocution) reflect treatment methods. Another component (Relaxed/Monitored Speech) consists mainly of items that reflect a common, non-professional understanding of effective management of stuttering. The components of the various perceived reasons for recovery reflect differing implicit theories of causes for recovery from stuttering. These theories are considered susceptible to various biases. This identification of components of reported techniques and of causal attributions is novel compared to previous studies who just list techniques and attributions., Conclusion: The identified dimensions of self-assisted techniques and causal attributions to reduce stuttering as extracted from self-reports of a large, international sample of recovered formerly stuttering adults may guide the application of behavioral stuttering therapies., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: In light of emerging findings concerning untreated recovery and neural plasticity, this paper re-examines the viability of an NIH conference recommendation [Cooper, J. A. (1990). Research directions in stuttering: Consensus and conflict. In Cooper, J. A. (Ed.), Research needs in stuttering: Roadblocks and future directions (pp. 98-100). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.] that adults who have recovered from stuttering might inform our understanding of the nature and treatment of persistent stuttering. It is suggested that those who have recovered could constitute a behavioral, cognitive, and neurophysiologic benchmark for evaluating stuttering treatment for adolescents and adults, while helping to identify the limits of recovery from a persistent disorder. This possibility seems especially promising because of findings from recent studies investigating untreated recovery during childhood and adulthood, the emerging evidence concerning neural plasticity and reorganization, and reports of neural system changes during stuttering treatment. Potential obstacles to applying findings from unassisted recovery to treatment do exist, but the benefits of attempts to fully understand stuttering certainly outweigh the difficulties., Educational Objectives: After completing this activity, the learner will be able to: (1) describe two complexities involved in determining whether recovery from stuttering was assisted or unassisted; (2) discuss the implications for stuttering research of two neural plasticity research findings from areas other than stuttering; and (3) evaluate the possible implications for stuttering treatment of a coordinated research program that addresses behavioral, cognitive, and neurological characteristics of assisted and unassisted recovery from stuttering.

Unlabelled: The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of recovery from stuttering based on the experiences of adults who recovered without treatment. Using a semi-structured, open-ended interview format, 15 speakers verified as persons who recovered without treatment were asked to describe their status as everyday speakers. Seven speakers reported that they no longer stuttered and eight reported that they still stuttered on occasion. Interview material was coded and analyzed by the investigators and checked by independent judges. Results suggested that complete recovery was possible for speakers who reported that they no longer stuttered; whereas, those who still stuttered occasionally appeared to no longer be handicapped by stuttering, but required some vigilance to maintain their relatively fluent speech., Educational Objectives: After completing this activity, the learner will be able to: (1) describe the relevance of self-report data for evaluating the nature of recovery from stuttering without treatment; (2) describe the differences in self-perception concerning the nature of recovery for those who no longer have any tendency to stutter compared to those who still have an occasional tendency to stutter; and (3) suggest the possible implications for understanding the nature of recovery from persistent stuttering based on investigations of late recovery without treatment.

Unlabelled: This paper overviews recent developments in an ongoing program of brain imaging research on developmental stuttering that is being conducted at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. This program has primarily used H(2)15O PET imaging of different speaking tasks by right-handed adult male and female persistent stutterers, recovered stutterers and controls in order to isolate the neural regions that are functionally associated with stuttered speech. The principal findings have emerged from studies using condition contrasts and performance correlation techniques. The emerging findings from these studies are reviewed and referenced to a neural model of normal speech production recently proposed by Jürgens [Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 26 (2002) 235]. This paper will report (1) the reconfiguration of previous findings within the Jürgens Model; (2) preliminary findings of an investigation with late recovered stutterers; (3) an investigation of neural activations during a treatment procedure designed to produce a sustained improvement in fluency; and (4) an across-studies comparison that seeks to isolate neural regions within the Jürgens Model that are consistently associated with stuttering. Two regions appear to meet this criterion: right anterior insula (activated) and anterior middle and superior temporal gyri (deactivated) mainly in right hemisphere. The implications of these findings and the direction of future imaging investigations are discussed., Educational Objectives: The reader will learn about (1) recent uses of H(2)15O PET imaging in stuttering research; (2) the use of a new neurological model of speech production in imaging research on stuttering; and (3) initial findings from PET imaging investigations of treated and recovered stutterers.

Unlabelled: 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.

Unlabelled: Generalization and maintenance are a widely recognized challenge for stuttering treatment. There are many reasons why this is the case. First, there is no accepted model of recovery, though self-efficacy may be a helpful construct and, secondly, the client's age, stuttering severity, and negative attitudes may be complicating factors. Three strategies for promoting generalization and maintenance in school settings are suggested based on current research evidence. They include probing and training for generalization, incorporating real-life elements into therapy, and training clients to self-regulate their behavior. These strategies appear to be viable and practical, but further research is needed to fully evaluate their effectiveness for school settings., Learning Outcomes: Readers will learn about (1) typical approaches to managing stuttering in the school setting, (2) barriers to generalization and maintenance of stuttering treatment gains, and (3) three strategies for promoting generalization and maintenance.

Self-regulation refers to a process by which individuals learn to direct and control their own behavior, thoughts, and feelings to manage or eliminate their stuttering. As a concept, it has been a vital and enduring component of most approaches to managing persistent and chronic stuttering. The theoretical basis for self-regulation is briefly reviewed and the main principles of self-regulation--goal setting, cue management, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation--are described and illustrated with clinical examples. Factors related to self-regulatory failure are also discussed.

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 available 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.

In light of emerging findings concerning untreated recovery and neural plasticity, this paper re-examines the viability of an NIH conference recommendation [Cooper, J. A. (1990). Research directions in stuttering: Consensus and conflict. In Cooper, J. A. (Ed.), "Research needs in stuttering: Roadblocks and future directions" (pp. 98-100). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.] that adults who have recovered from stuttering might inform our understanding of the nature and treatment of persistent stuttering. It is suggested that those who have recovered could constitute a behavioral, cognitive, and neurophysiologic benchmark for evaluating stuttering treatment for adolescents and adults, while helping to identify the limits of recovery from a persistent disorder. This possibility seems especially promising because of findings from recent studies investigating untreated recovery during childhood and adulthood, the emerging evidence concerning neural plasticity and reorganization, and reports of neural system changes during stuttering treatment. Potential obstacles to applying findings from unassisted recovery to treatment do exist, but the benefits of attempts to fully understand stuttering certainly outweigh the difficulties. Educational objectives: After completing this activity, the learner will be able to: (1) describe two complexities involved in determining whether recovery from stuttering was assisted or unassisted; (2) discuss the implications for stuttering research of two neural plasticity research findings from areas other than stuttering; and (3) evaluate the possible implications for stuttering treatment of a coordinated research program that addresses behavioral, cognitive, and neurological characteristics of assisted and unassisted recovery from stuttering.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of recovery from stuttering based on the experiences of adults who recovered without treatment. Using a semi-structured, open-ended interview format, 15 speakers verified as persons who recovered without treatment were asked to describe their status as everyday speakers. Seven speakers reported that they no longer stuttered and eight reported that they still stuttered on occasion. Interview material was coded and analyzed by the investigators and checked by independent judges. Results suggested that complete recovery was possible for speakers who reported that they no longer stuttered; whereas, those who still stuttered occasionally appeared to no longer be handicapped by stuttering, but required some vigilance to maintain their relatively fluent speech. Educational objectives: After completing this activity, the learner will be able to: (1) describe the relevance of self-report data for evaluating the nature of recovery from stuttering without treatment; (2) describe the differences in self-perception concerning the nature of recovery for those who no longer have any tendency to stutter compared to those who still have an occasional tendency to stutter; and (3) suggest the possible implications for understanding the nature of recovery from persistent stuttering based on investigations of late recovery without treatment. (Contains 2 tables and 2 figures.)

The difficulties of generalization and maintenance in stuttering treatment is discussed. Three strategies for promoting generalization and maintenance in school settings are suggested based on current research evidence: probing and training for generalization; incorporating real-life elements into therapy; and training clients to self-regulate their behavior. (Contains references.) (Author/CR)

This study examined a validation procedure combining self-reports with independent verification to identify cases of recovery from stuttering without formal treatment. A Speech Behavior Checklist was administered to 42 individuals familiar with recovered subjects' past speech. Analysis of subjects' descriptions of their past stuttering was corroborated by the independent informants on the checklist. (DB)

Twelve adult stutterers were instructed to self-rate the speech naturalness (how natural their speech sounds) and feel naturalness (the amount of attention they are paying to the way they are speaking) of their speech under a variety of conditions across repeated rating occasions. Results showed that subjects were relatively consistent and valid self-raters. (Author/JDD)

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: 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]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a study determining the perceptual differences in the speech of adults who had recovered from stuttering without the assistance of treatment. Measurement of various speech behavior; Correlation of the perceptual differences with unnatural sounding speech and a high-frequency of part-word repetitions; Screening criteria used in normally fluent speakers.

Examines the validation of recovery from stuttering without formal treatment. Independent verification and self-reports; Recovery from stuttering without assistance; Independence of recovery from treatment.

Presents a study on the reliability and validity of stutterers' self-ratings of speech naturalness and speech monitoring. Rhythmic stimulation; Stutter and syllable counts; Effects and agreement levels; Comparison between on-line ratings and off-line ratings; Correlation analysis of independent and dependent variables.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the report by Andrews and Craig in the August 1988 issue which claims to have identified three treatment goals that predict long-term success following stuttering therapy.