Reviewing the Literature Comments on "The Camperdown Program: Outcomes of a New Prolonged-Speech Treatment Model" (2003) for Stuttering Review Article
Review Article  |   October 01, 2005
Reviewing the Literature
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • David Prins
    University of Washington, Seattle
  • Roger J. Ingham
    University of California, Santa Barbara
  • Corresponding author: e-mail: tdsnirp@yahoo.com
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Speech / Review Article
Review Article   |   October 01, 2005
Reviewing the Literature
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 2005, Vol. 48, 1025-1028. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/070)
History: Received March 16, 2005 , Revised June 3, 2005 , Accepted June 4, 2005
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 2005, Vol. 48, 1025-1028. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/070)
History: Received March 16, 2005; Revised June 3, 2005; Accepted June 4, 2005
Web of Science® Times Cited: 2
Time is past due for public discussion of an article by O’Brian, Onslow, Cream, and Packman (2003) that reported the outcomes of Camperdown, a ‘‘reconceptualized’’ prolonged speech (PS) treatment program. According to the authors, their new model ‘‘introduces the following treatment process innovations’’ (p. 935): (a) replacement of vague, verbally described PS performance targets (e.g., soft contacts, gentle voice onset, and a very slow speech rate) with a modeling procedure requiring imitation of a videotape demonstration of PS, and (b) replacement of stepwise programmed instruction for instating and transferring PS with practice and problem-solving sessions using clinician guidance and feedback. These innovations speak principally to two treatment concerns: the need to operationalize performance targets and the need to reduce clinical hours devoted to treatment. The authors found the outcomes of Camperdown to be roughly equivalent to those from an earlier program that required significantly more clinical hours and that instated and transferred PS by using traditional, stepwise programmed instruction (Onslow, Costa, Andrews, Harrison, & Packman, 1996). However, the authors failed to consider the relevant literature that should have informed the background, discussion, and conclusions for their study.
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