Evidence-Based Treatment and Stuttering—Historical Perspective Purpose To illustrate the way in which both fluency shaping (FS) and stuttering management (SM) treatments for developmental stuttering in adults are evidence based. Method A brief review of the history and development of FS and SM is provided. It illustrates that both can be justified as evidence-based ... Research Article
Research Article  |   February 01, 2009
Evidence-Based Treatment and Stuttering—Historical Perspective
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • David Prins
    University of Washington
  • Roger J. Ingham
    University of California, Santa Barbara
  • Contact author: Roger J. Ingham, Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. E-mail: rjingham@speech.ucsb.edu.
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Speech / Research Articles
Research Article   |   February 01, 2009
Evidence-Based Treatment and Stuttering—Historical Perspective
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, February 2009, Vol. 52, 254-263. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0111)
History: Received May 23, 2007 , Revised October 2, 2007 , Accepted April 7, 2008
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, February 2009, Vol. 52, 254-263. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0111)
History: Received May 23, 2007; Revised October 2, 2007; Accepted April 7, 2008
Web of Science® Times Cited: 15

Purpose To illustrate the way in which both fluency shaping (FS) and stuttering management (SM) treatments for developmental stuttering in adults are evidence based.

Method A brief review of the history and development of FS and SM is provided. It illustrates that both can be justified as evidence-based treatments, each treatment seeking evidence of a different kind: FS seeks evidence concerning treatment outcome, and SM seeks evidence concerning the nature of the stutter event.

Conclusion Although outcome evidence provides the principal support for FS, support for SM comes principally from a cognitive learning model of defensive behavior as applied to the nature of the stutter event. Neither approach can claim anything like uniform success with adults who stutter. However, self-management and modeling are strategies common to both approaches and have shown consistently positive effects on outcome. It is argued that both strategies merit additional treatment efficacy study. Cognitive behavior theory may provide a useful framework for this research.

Acknowledgments
Parts of this article were written with the support Grant R01 DC007893 from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access