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


     

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.52 254-263 February 2009. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0111)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow An erratum has been published
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?

Evidence-Based Treatment and Stuttering—Historical Perspective

David Prins
University of Washington

Roger J. Ingham
University of California, Santa Barbara

Contact author: Roger J. Ingham, Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. E-mail: 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 evidence 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 treatment seeking evidence of a different kind: FS seeks evidence concerning treatment outcome, and SM seeks evidence concerning the nature of the stutter event.

Conclusion: Although 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.

KEY WORDS: stuttering, treatment, evidence-based practice


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 TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.