Response to "Clinicians Deserve Better: Observations on a Clinical Forum Titled ‘What Child Language Research May Contribute to the Understanding and Treatment of Stuttering’" by Ingham (2005) As the guest editor and authors for the clinical forum serving as the focus of Ingham’s (2005)  letter, we feel obliged to respond. We will not answer him point for point, mostly because many of his “points” seem to be confused with his opinions. Rather, we are going to restate ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   April 01, 2005
Response to "Clinicians Deserve Better: Observations on a Clinical Forum Titled ‘What Child Language Research May Contribute to the Understanding and Treatment of Stuttering’" by Ingham (2005)
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Amy L. Weiss
    Department of Communication Disorders, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881
  • Nancy Hall
    University of Maine, Orono
  • Margaret M. Leahy
    Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
  • Corresponding author: e-mail: alw@uri.edu
Article Information
Development / Research Issues, Methods & Evidence-Based Practice / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   April 01, 2005
Response to "Clinicians Deserve Better: Observations on a Clinical Forum Titled ‘What Child Language Research May Contribute to the Understanding and Treatment of Stuttering’" by Ingham (2005)
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, April 2005, Vol. 36, 156-157. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2005/015)
History: Received September 24, 2004 , Accepted October 25, 2004
 
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, April 2005, Vol. 36, 156-157. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2005/015)
History: Received September 24, 2004; Accepted October 25, 2004
Web of Science® Times Cited: 2
As the guest editor and authors for the clinical forum serving as the focus of Ingham’s (2005)  letter, we feel obliged to respond. We will not answer him point for point, mostly because many of his “points” seem to be confused with his opinions. Rather, we are going to restate the purpose of this forum and clarify the goals of the contributors that Ingham must have either missed or dismissed as not important enough to mention. In addition, we will comment on what this forum was not meant to be, and address at least one critical misinterpretation on Ingham’s part. Our hope is that the latter two portions of this letter serve as an overall response to many of the personal criticisms included in Ingham’s (2005)  letter.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access