Remote Stuttering Treatment Yields Mixed Results Half of the participants who received webcam service delivery of the Camperdown Program for adolescents who stutter maintained their gains 12 months into a maintenance phase, according to results published in Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. Researchers led by Brenda Carey at the Australian Stuttering Research Centre in ... Research in Brief
Free
Research in Brief  |   January 01, 2015
Remote Stuttering Treatment Yields Mixed Results
Author Notes
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Telepractice & Computer-Based Approaches / Research in Brief
Research in Brief   |   January 01, 2015
Remote Stuttering Treatment Yields Mixed Results
The ASHA Leader, January 2015, Vol. 20, 16. doi:10.1044/leader.RIB4.20012015.16
The ASHA Leader, January 2015, Vol. 20, 16. doi:10.1044/leader.RIB4.20012015.16
Half of the participants who received webcam service delivery of the Camperdown Program for adolescents who stutter maintained their gains 12 months into a maintenance phase, according to results published in Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools.
Researchers led by Brenda Carey at the Australian Stuttering Research Centre in Sydney expanded on the results of a Phase I trial, in which webcam-delivered Camperdown treatment achieved a 74 percent group mean reduction in stuttering from pretreatment to 12 months post-treatment.
In this Phase II trial, 16 adolescent boys received remote-only services. For the 14 participants who completed treatment, mean stuttering frequency fell from 6.1 percent syllables stuttered at pretreatment to 2.8 percent at 12 months after entry into maintenance. Treatment was completed in a mean of 25 sessions.
As a group, the adolescents significantly reduced the frequency and severity of their stuttering, with associated reductions in situation avoidance and impact of stuttering. There was also an associated increase in satisfaction with fluency generally. However, there was considerable individual variation in outcomes. For example, one adolescent saw minimal reduction in objectively measured or self-reported stuttering; however, he reported a significant reduction in speaking avoidance, presumably resulting in greater communicative engagement. Although several of the participants’ stuttering did not reach less than 1 percent of syllables stuttered—a common indicator of success—they did reduce their stuttering by more than 50 percent, which would likely result in less impairment of their communication ability.
And, although the outcomes were positive for many of the participants immediately post-treatment, only around half maintained those gains 12 months later. However, based on self-reported measures, 12 participants maintained or further reduced their severity 12 months later.
0 Comments
Submit a Comment
Submit A Comment
Name
Comment Title
Comment


This feature is available to Subscribers Only
Sign In or Create an Account ×
FROM THIS ISSUE
January 2015
Volume 20, Issue 1