Reviewing the Literature? A Response to Prins and Ingham (2005) Prins and Ingham (2005)  take us to task over our report of the Camperdown Program (O’Brian, Onslow, Cream, & Packman, 2003) . This is a behavioral treatment for chronic stuttering that is based on prolonged speech (PS). It uses an innovative procedure for instating stutter-free speech. Satisfactory outcomes were achieved ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   October 01, 2005
Reviewing the Literature? A Response to Prins and Ingham (2005)
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Sue O'Brian
    Australian Stuttering Research Center, The University of Sydney, Australia
  • Mark Onslow
    Australian Stuttering Research Center, The University of Sydney, Australia
  • Angela Cream
    Australian Stuttering Research Center, The University of Sydney, Australia
  • Ann Packman
    Australian Stuttering Research Center, The University of Sydney, Australia
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Research Issues, Methods & Evidence-Based Practice / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Speech / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   October 01, 2005
Reviewing the Literature? A Response to Prins and Ingham (2005)
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 2005, Vol. 48, 1029-1032. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/071)
History: Received June 28, 2005 , Accepted August 19, 2005
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 2005, Vol. 48, 1029-1032. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/071)
History: Received June 28, 2005; Accepted August 19, 2005
Prins and Ingham (2005)  take us to task over our report of the Camperdown Program (O’Brian, Onslow, Cream, & Packman, 2003) . This is a behavioral treatment for chronic stuttering that is based on prolonged speech (PS). It uses an innovative procedure for instating stutter-free speech. Satisfactory outcomes were achieved without programmed instruction.
We were pleased to see that Prins and Ingham’s (2005)  letter contains no criticism of–nor indeed even mention of–the design, methods, or measurements used in the study. Instead, they criticize our review of the literature as inadequate. In seeking reasons for their critique we note that more than a third of their references are to their own work. We can only conclude, then, that we did not review the literature as they would have reviewed it. In any event, we appreciate the opportunity to respond to Prins and Ingham. In the following, we counter their most prominent criticisms and explain why, in most cases, we feel justified that our literature review was appropriate. We also show where their arguments misrepresent our work.
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