On the Importance of Procedural Descriptions in Treatment Efficacy Research: A Response to Snow, Swisher, McNamara, and Kiernan (1996) Snow et al. (1996) raise two important issues regarding the interpretation of Camarata, Nelson, and Camarata (1994). First, they note that in a comparison of contrasting intervention programs differing by more than one procedural subcomponent it is impossible to determine the relative contribution of any one subcomponent to the ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   February 01, 1996
On the Importance of Procedural Descriptions in Treatment Efficacy Research: A Response to Snow, Swisher, McNamara, and Kiernan (1996)
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Stephen Camarata
    Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN
  • Keith E. Nelson
    Penn State University University Park, PA
  • Mary Camarata
    Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN
Article Information
School-Based Settings / Normal Language Processing / Language Disorders / Language / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   February 01, 1996
On the Importance of Procedural Descriptions in Treatment Efficacy Research: A Response to Snow, Swisher, McNamara, and Kiernan (1996)
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, February 1996, Vol. 39, 222-223. doi:10.1044/jshr.3901.222
History: Received June 30, 1995 , Accepted September 20, 1995
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, February 1996, Vol. 39, 222-223. doi:10.1044/jshr.3901.222
History: Received June 30, 1995; Accepted September 20, 1995
Snow et al. (1996) raise two important issues regarding the interpretation of Camarata, Nelson, and Camarata (1994). First, they note that in a comparison of contrasting intervention programs differing by more than one procedural subcomponent it is impossible to determine the relative contribution of any one subcomponent to the overall results. Rather, any outcome must be interpreted within the context of the overall treatment effectiveness for the entire set of intervention procedures. The second issue discussed by Snow et al. concerns the nomenclature used to designate the treatment types in our study. They argue that our use of “conversational recast treatment” should be replaced by “child play” and our “imitation-based treatment” should be replaced by “school work.” Snow et al. suggest that these replacement terms more clearly capture key aspects of the interventions reported in Camarata et al. Each of these issues is addressed below.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access