Yaruss, Coleman, and Hammer (2006): An Exemplar of Non-Evidence-Based Practice in Stuttering Treatment Purpose This letter is a response to a recent report by J. S. Yaruss, C. Coleman, and D. Hammer (2006)  that described a treatment program for preschool children who stutter. Conclusion Problems with the Yaruss et al. study fall into four domains: (a) failure to provide clinicians with ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   July 01, 2007
Yaruss, Coleman, and Hammer (2006): An Exemplar of Non-Evidence-Based Practice in Stuttering Treatment
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • 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 / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   July 01, 2007
Yaruss, Coleman, and Hammer (2006): An Exemplar of Non-Evidence-Based Practice in Stuttering Treatment
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, July 2007, Vol. 38, 283-286. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2007/029)
History: Received June 6, 2006 , Accepted July 26, 2006
 
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, July 2007, Vol. 38, 283-286. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2007/029)
History: Received June 6, 2006; Accepted July 26, 2006

Purpose This letter is a response to a recent report by J. S. Yaruss, C. Coleman, and D. Hammer (2006)  that described a treatment program for preschool children who stutter.

Conclusion Problems with the Yaruss et al. study fall into four domains: (a) failure to provide clinicians with replicable procedures, (b) failure to collect valid and reliable speech performance data, (c) failure to control for predictable improvement in children who have been stuttering for less than 15 months, and (d) the advocacy of procedures for which there is no credible research evidence. The claims made for the efficacy of this treatment are problematic and essentially violate the principles of evidence-based practice as recommended by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access