Most discussions about the uncertainty and
disagreement that exists in the field of treatment for children who stutter take
place between professionals.
Fortunately, with existing technology, parents can now access these
conversations. I think it’s important to
take advantage of these opened doors in order to gain the necessary context
needed to make safe and educated decisions around treatment for children.
Recently I listened to Peter Reitzes (StutterTalk
podcast 494) interview Dr. Craig Coleman, a speech therapist and professor at
Marshall University and also a board-certified
specialist in fluency disorders. They
were challenging a colleague’s YouTube videos on response contingency therapy
i.e. Lidcombe. In her videos, Carrie Clark
promotes response contingency therapy as “the best” therapy for preschoolers
according to evidence-based research.
Coleman rightfully
questions this evidence. He points out
that we should not confuse “most data” with “best data” and I think that’s
brilliant. He questions what the study
actually measures and its value to the well-being of the child. Coleman defines
disfluencies as a disruption in the flow of speech and stuttering as
disfluencies AND physical tension, secondary behaviors, negative reaction,
impact on communication, etc…I see this as one of the better descriptions of
these terms. The physical tension,
secondary behaviors, negative reaction, and impact on communication,
self-esteem and long-term well-being can create a far greater handicap for
children who stutter, and yet the primary focus continues to be the
disfluencies. In fact, I believe that
the focus on disfluencies often contributes to the manifestation of the
stuttering behavior, especially with young children.
Coleman refers to a survey he conducted where 96% of
speech therapists defined stuttering as disfluencies only. He points out that “how you define the term
is also going to be how you assess it and treat it.” So it’s safe to bet that the majority of
speech therapists who treat children are still focusing primarily on getting
rid of the disfluencies. The tide is
beginning to turn, but not quickly enough!
Following is an example of what many parents on my Voice Unearthed Facebook
are experiencing:
"Tommy" received his school-based speech
progress report today and reading the remarks on it leave me with all sorts of
mixed emotions. To highlight some portions of it, 'goals: Tommy will increase
control and understanding of disfluent behavior. Tommy will develop controls of
breathing and voice to be more fluent.' Overall comments: 'Tommy's articulation
is intelligible and accurate when he slows down his speech and concentrates on controlling
his fluency. He continues to require prompting to remember to utilize his
strategies for fluency and secondary behaviors seem to increase with his
excitement'.
I wish I could say this is the exception but it is not. Coleman also says it’s important to match the
skill set of the therapist to the individual needs of the child and their
family. What does that even mean? Therapists do have different skill sets, but
what are they and which one matches up with your child? We can only find out through trial and error
and sadly that’s where the damage can be done.
ASHA wants us to put our faith in their system of
certification and yet they themselves report, in a 2010 study, through the National Center for Evidence Based
Practice for Preschoolers, that
"The current state of evidence does not
provide meaningful information for clinicians’ attempt to decide between direct
(Lidcombe or speech tools) and indirect therapy."
At the same time
Coleman states that if you look at all the different models – Lidcombe, Palin
Centre, Demands and Capacities – that “all the results are very good.” Based on what – measures of
disfluencies?
In conclusion…
1)
1) There is no
meaningful information for therapists to decide between direct and indirect
therapy for preschoolers,
2)
2) most speech
therapists define stuttering inaccurately which lends itself to inappropriate
treatments,
3)
3) and studies
that are suppose to provide evidence of efficacy are measuring the wrong data
in the first place.
And yet Reitzes and
Colman enthusiastically agree when Clark says “If you are worried, go ask a
speech therapist.” I don’t think I’m in
any hurry…
(Don’t get me wrong -- I
would say that speech therapists are one of the most dedicated and
compassionate groups of professionals I’ve ever come across. Many have been convinced by the powers that
be that there is good evidence supporting the treatment options they are
trained to provide. As professionals,
they believe they are ethically and morally obligated to abide by those options. They put their faith in what they’ve been
taught just as we put our faith in them.)