Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.53 1260-1262 October 2010. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/10-0091)
© 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 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 Anderson, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, J. D.
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

Response to Howell's (2010) Commentary

Julie D. Anderson
Indiana University, Bloomington

Contact author: Julie D. Anderson, Department of Speech and Hearing Science, Indiana University, 200 South Jordan Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405-7002. E-mail: judander{at}indiana.edu.

Purpose: Findings from Anderson (2007) were broadly interpreted according to several psycholinguistic-oriented theories of stuttering, including EXPLAN (Howell, 2004). Although the study was not explicitly designed to test EXPLAN, it was generally concluded that the evidence does not provide appreciable support for EXPLAN. Howell (2010) objected to this conclusion on several grounds, claiming that the findings do, in fact, support EXPLAN. Anderson responds to Howell's objections in this letter.

Method: Background and perspective on the original study were presented. Howell's comments on EXPLAN's predictions concerning stuttering on "easy" and "difficult" words and the relationship between speech errors and stuttering are disputed in this reply to Howell's commentary.

Results: Howell's claims that the findings of Anderson support EXPLAN are largely refuted on the basis that (a) the data had not been analyzed by grammatical class and (b) there are no clear predictions regarding the association between variables affecting speech errors and stuttering in EXPLAN.

Conclusions: Howell's commentary seemingly represents an attempt to provide confirmatory evidence for EXPLAN using data that are simply not suitable for this purpose.

KEY WORDS: stuttering, phonological neighborhood, frequency, children, EXPLAN


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?