Response to Howell’s (2010) Commentary 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 ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   October 2010
Response to Howell’s (2010) Commentary
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • 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@indiana.edu.
  • © 2010 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationAmerican Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Speech
Letter to the Editor   |   October 2010
Response to Howell’s (2010) Commentary
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 2010, Vol. 53, 1260-1262. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/10-0091)
History: Received April 5, 2010 , Accepted July 7, 2010
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 2010, Vol. 53, 1260-1262. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/10-0091)
History: Received April 5, 2010; Accepted July 7, 2010

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.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access