JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


JSLHR Papers in Press
Published online August 11, 2008

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2008; doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0111)

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2009;52:254.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text ([PDF])
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Prins, D.
Right arrow Articles by Ingham, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Prins, D.
Right arrow Articles by Ingham, R. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Evidenced-Based Treatment and Stuttering – Historical Perspective

David Prins
University of Washington

Roger J. Ingham
University of California, Santa Barbara

Corresponding Author: Roger J. Ingham Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 email: rjingham{at}speech.ucsb.edu

Purpose: To illustrate the way in which both Fluency Shaping (FS) and Stuttering Management (SM) treatments for developmental stuttering in adults are evidenced-based.

Method: A brief review of the history and development of FS and SM is provided. It illustrates that both can be justified as evidence-based treatments, each having sought evidence of a different kind – FS, evidence concerning treatment outcome; SM, evidence concerning the nature of the stutter event.

Conclusion: While outcome evidence provides the principal support for FS, support for SM comes principally from a cognitive learning model of defensive behavior as applied to the nature of the stutter event. Neither approach can claim anything like uniform success with adults who stutter. However, self-management and modeling are strategies common to both approaches, and have shown consistently positive effects on outcome. It is argued that both strategies merit additional treatment efficacy study. Cognitive behavior theory may provide a useful framework for this research.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.