Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.53 908-911 August 2010. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/09-0128)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Saltuklaroglu, T.
Right arrow Articles by Stuart, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Saltuklaroglu, T.
Right arrow Articles by Stuart, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Letter to the Editor

Refutation of a Therapeutic Alternative? A Reply to Pollard, Ellis, Finan, and Ramig (2009)

Tim Saltuklaroglu
University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Joseph Kalinowski
Andrew Stuart
East Carolina University, Greenville, NC

Contact author: Tim Saltuklaroglu, Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee, 533 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996-0740. E-mail: tsaltukl{at}utk.edu.

Purpose: To challenge the findings of Pollard, Ellis, Finan, and Ramig (2009), who examined 11 participants using the SpeechEasy, an in-the-ear device that employs altered auditory feedback to reduce stuttering, in a 6-month "clinical trial." Pollard et al. failed to demonstrate a significant treatment effect on stuttering frequency, yet found positive subjective self-report data across four months of use. The authors concluded that the device was not therapeutically useful and further testing is unwarranted.

Results: We dispute Pollard et al. on the following grounds: Their operational definition of stuttering is confounded as it does not adequately distinguish true stuttering from "normally" disfluent speech or from volitionally produced initiating gestures taught to be used as part of the treatment protocol, nor is it the definition used in their pre- and posttreatment stuttering assessment instrument; they failed to maintain participant adherence to the treatment protocol of device usage; they utilized an inadequate question-asking task; and their conclusion of no significant treatment effect that is drawn from their inferential statistical analyses of group data.

Conclusions: In light of problematic objective measurements, reported positive subjective findings, a robust corpus of contradictory data, and the need for alternative stuttering treatments, we argue that the SpeechEasy merits further investigation.

KEY WORDS: stuttering, treatment, altered auditory feedback, SpeechEasy


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JSLHRHome page
R. Pollard, D. Finan, and P. R. Ramig
Response to Saltuklaroglu, Kalinowski, and Stuart (2010)
J Speech Lang Hear Res, August 1, 2010; 53(4): 912 - 916.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]