Intensive Stuttering Therapy in a Public School Setting Two intensive stuttering treatment programs, which were implemented in a public school setting, are described. In the initial program, six students were treated using graded airflow, tension/relaxation, and EMG biofeedback procedures to reduce stuttering frequency. A discriminative stimulus (SD) control procedure was to be used to facilitate the maintenance of ... Research Article
Research Article  |   October 01, 1987
Intensive Stuttering Therapy in a Public School Setting
 
Author Notes
  • Jon M. Hasbrouck is the Director of the Rocky Mountain Institute for Stuttering Therapy, 1170 Lehigh Dr., Boulder, CO 80303. Requests for reprints may be sent to him at this address John Doherty, Marybeth Ames Mehlmann, Rochelle Nelson, Bonnie Randle, and Rebecca Whitaker are affiliated with the Cherry Creek School District, Englewood, CO 80111.
    Jon M. Hasbrouck is the Director of the Rocky Mountain Institute for Stuttering Therapy, 1170 Lehigh Dr., Boulder, CO 80303. Requests for reprints may be sent to him at this address John Doherty, Marybeth Ames Mehlmann, Rochelle Nelson, Bonnie Randle, and Rebecca Whitaker are affiliated with the Cherry Creek School District, Englewood, CO 80111.×
Article Information
Research Articles
Research Article   |   October 01, 1987
Intensive Stuttering Therapy in a Public School Setting
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, October 1987, Vol. 18, 330-343. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.1804.330
History: Received December 9, 1985 , Accepted August 18, 1986
 
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, October 1987, Vol. 18, 330-343. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.1804.330
History: Received December 9, 1985; Accepted August 18, 1986

Two intensive stuttering treatment programs, which were implemented in a public school setting, are described. In the initial program, six students were treated using graded airflow, tension/relaxation, and EMG biofeedback procedures to reduce stuttering frequency. A discriminative stimulus (SD) control procedure was to be used to facilitate the maintenance of fluency following treatment, but due to time constraints only one student completed the SD program. All six students met the criterion of ⩽1% stuttered words by the end of the treatment, but only the one student who completed the maintenance procedure continued to meet the fluency criterion of ⩽1% stuttered words at follow up, 7 months later. In the second treatment program, nine students were treated using procedures only slightly modified from the first program. The modified procedures allowed all students to complete all aspects of the treatment program, including the discriminative stimulus (S D) control procedure. All nine students in the second program met the criterion of ⩽1% stuttered words by the end of treatment and six of the nine continued to meet the criterion of ⩽1% stuttered words in follow up assessment 6 to 7 months post treatment. The procedures and results are discussed in terms of the relevance of intensive behavioral programming of stuttering therapy in the public schools.

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