The Distraction Hypothesis and the Practice of Pseudoscience A Reply to Bloodstein (1998) Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   August 01, 1999
The Distraction Hypothesis and the Practice of Pseudoscience
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Andrew Stuart
    East Carolina University Greenville, NC
  • Editor’s Note: Drs. Armson and Stuart concluded that their positions regarding Dr. Bloodstein’s comments on their article were sufficiently disparate to warrant individual replies. As such, Dr. Armson and Dr. Stuart have provided individual replies.
    Editor’s Note: Drs. Armson and Stuart concluded that their positions regarding Dr. Bloodstein’s comments on their article were sufficiently disparate to warrant individual replies. As such, Dr. Armson and Dr. Stuart have provided individual replies.×
  • —Dale Evan Metz
    —Dale Evan Metz×
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Speech / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   August 01, 1999
The Distraction Hypothesis and the Practice of Pseudoscience
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, August 1999, Vol. 42, 913-914. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4204.913
History: Received September 16, 1998 , Accepted February 24, 1999
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, August 1999, Vol. 42, 913-914. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4204.913
History: Received September 16, 1998; Accepted February 24, 1999
Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges insights provided by Joseph Kalinowski during the preparation of the manuscript.
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