Talk:Stuttering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Stuttering is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 21, 2005.
Peer review This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Archives
  1. thru Sep 17, 2007


Contents

[edit] Removed

Removed text that is uncited, poorly sourced, or sounds like an essay rather than an encyclopedic entry. If this information can be cited and written in an encyclopedic tone, it may be possible to readd it, preferably to correct sections per WP:MEDMOS and avoiding use of words to avoid and weasle words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media publicity about stuttering "cures"

Reports about successful stuttering treatment are not rare in contemporary media, particularly in television news programs and talk shows, since stories about recovery from stuttering have a strong emotional appeal. Media reports have typically focused on dramatic treatments such as the fluency-shaping method of therapy and, more recently, electronic fluency aids. Although such treatments may increase fluency in some stutterers, media reports seldom examine either the long-term efficacy of these treatments or their effect on stutterers of differing severity. As a result, media reports usually imply that such therapies are miracle cures. (Significantly, licensed speech pathologists who provide these treatments routinely emphasize that they are not "cures".) Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that media attention to such treatments may actually have a negative effect on the public perception of stutterers: for example, after an uncritical media report incorrectly claims the existence of a newly available "cure", non-stuttering family members and workplace superiors may penalize or put pressure on a stutterer for not having his or her speech impediment "cured".

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur about the problems involved in media articles that simplify the possibility of a 'cure' to stammering. It's not that easy to quantify. There are also outside influences - the more pressure in social situations the worse the stammer sometimes. I used to find sibilants particularly hard to deal with and at times were distressed by them. Ironically enough putting on a Scottish accent removed my stammer almost completely. It sounds odd, but it worked - for me that is. Darkmind1970 15:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-stuttering medications

Clinical trials are underway for what could be the first FDA-approved anti-stuttering medications. Pagoclone is a gamma amino butyric acid (GABA) selective receptor modulator. Dopamine and GABA are both neurotransmitters.14

Removed due to clear conflict of interest on dead link to reference (patent holder), no journal published research, and clear statements at pagoclone that this treatment is unlikely. If the text can be better cited to reliable sources, it can be added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Other medications can increase stuttering, or even cause a person to start stuttering. Such medications include dopamine agonists such as Ritalin and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) such as Prozac and Zoloft.

Uncited, removed because there are PubMed studies indicating SSRIs are used to treat stuttering, this needs to be sorted out and cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note 15

  • Note 15: Auditory feedback and stuttering:
  • Kalinowski J, Armson J, Roland-Mieszkowski M, Stuart A, Gracco VL (1993). "Effects of alterations in auditory feedback and speech rate on stuttering frequency". Language and speech 36 ( Pt 1): 1–16. PMID 8345771. 
  • Kalinowski J, Stuart A (1996). "Stuttering amelioration at various auditory feedback delays and speech rates". European journal of disorders of communication : the journal of the College of Speech and Language Therapists, London 31 (3): 259–69. PMID 8944848. 
  • Zimmerman S, Kalinowski J, Stuart A, Rastatter M (1997). "Effect of altered auditory feedback on people who stutter during scripted telephone conversations". J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 40 (5): 1130–4. PMID 9328884. 
  • Stager SV, Denman DW, Ludlow CL (1997). "Modifications in aerodynamic variables by persons who stutter under fluency-evoking conditions". J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 40 (4): 832–47. PMID 9263947. 

Note 15 no longer in this article, cleaned up to better sources and use of cite journal, but removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes 16–18

  • Note 16: Ryan, B.P., Van Kirk, B. "The Establishment, Transfer and Maintenance of Fluent Speech in 50 Stutterers Using Delayed Auditory Feedback and Operant Procedures." Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 39:1, February, 1974. Ryan, Bruce and Barbara Van Kirk Ryan. "Programmed Stuttering Treatment for Children: Comparison of Two Establishment Programs Through Transfer, Maintenance, and Follow-Up," Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38:1, February 1995. Radford, N., Tanguma, J., Gonzalez, M., Nericcio, M.A., Newman, D. "A Case Study of Mediated Learning, Delayed Auditory Feedback, and Motor Repatterning to Reduce Stuttering," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2005, 101, 63–71.
  • Note 17: Delayed auditory feedback in the treatment of stuttering: clients as consumers. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 2003, Vol. 38, No. 2, 119–129.. Retrieved on June 11, 2006.
  • Note 18: Stuart, A., Kalinowski, J., Rastatter, M., Saltuklaroglu, T., Dayalu, V. "Investigations of the impact of altered auditory feedback in-the-ear devices on the speech of people who stutter: initial fitting and 4-month follow-up," International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 2004, 39:1, 93–113. Stuart, A., Kalinowski, J., Saltuklaroglu, T., Guntupalli, V. "Investigations of the impact of altered auditory feedback in-the-ear devices on the speech of people who stutter: One-year follow-up," Disability and Rehabilitation, 2006. 1–9.

Removed from Notes, no longer in this article, if used again, cleanup to cite journal format (including PMIDs) is still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes 8 and 9

Removed; no longer in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note 42

Removed; no longer in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

Stuttering has been correlated with certain genes;29 however, a genetic cause for stuttering has yet to be proven. Many studies have investigated stuttering in families, yet typically have yielded results that could be interpreted as either genetic or social environment ("nature" or "nurture").

  • Note 29: Comings, D., et al., "Polygenic Inheritance of Tourette Syndrome, Stuttering, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity, Conduct, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder," American Journal of Medical Genetics 67:264–288 (1996).

Comings work enjoys no widespread support by peers; too speculative, removed. If this text can be sourced without relying on Comings (ascertainment bias in Tourette syndrome samples), perhaps it could be added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phone companies

Along with disability legislation, many stutterer rights groups have formed to address these issues. One interesting example is the Turkish Association of Disabled Persons, which successfully appealed to the major Turkish telephone company Telsim, resulting in reduced rates for people with stutters or other speech disabilities because of the additional time it takes them to converse on the telephone.[1]

Removed, not based on reliable source, self-reported. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More removals

As requested, I have removed other sections that are unsourced or that I believe to be inaccurate. I have also done a small amount of editing of the existing text to remove commentary and other unencyclopedic content.Slp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Causes

No single, exclusive cause of stuttering is known. A variety of hypotheses and theories suggest multiple factors contributing to stuttering.

Head injuries and strokes can cause repetitions, prolongations, and blocks. Stuttering also can be induced by specific medications. Medications such as antidepressants, antihistamines, tranquilizers and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been known to affect speech in this way.

Rarely, traumatic experiences caused an adult to begin stuttering. Psychogenic stuttering typically involves rapid, effortless repetitions of initial sounds, without struggle behavior. Since stuttering may reappear at times of emotional strain, a psychogenesis has been proposed, but if there are any psychologic abnormalities in the stutterer, they are secondary rather than primary. It's observed that many stutterers, probably as a result of this impediment to free social interaction, do become increasingly fearful of talking and develop feelings of inferiority. By the time adolescence and adulthood are reached, emotional factors are so prominent that many physicians have mistaken stuttering for neurosis. Usually there is little or no evidence of any personality deviation before the onset of stuttering, and psychotherapy has not had a significant effect on the underlying defect. A strong family history in many cases and male dominance point to a genetic origin, but the inheritance does not follow a readily discernible pattern.

Another prominent view is that stuttering is caused by neural synchronization problems in the brain. Recent research indicates that stuttering may be correlated with disrupted fibers between the speech area and language planning area, both in the left hemisphere of the brain. Such a disruption could potentially be due to early brain damage or to a genetic defect.

No references and such an incomplete description of the topic that it is best removed until all theories (linguistic, motor control, learning theory etc) are described fullySlp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (October 2007)

The dominant schools of thought should definitely be added with proper sourcing and scope. The one theory I have heard, for example, was that a dominant cause was over-correction by adults. It would be nice to see a discussion of the scientific status of this and other theories, if only to know that none have been proven, and if any have been disproven. -- Beland 19:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stress-related changes

 This section overlaps with other sections; it should be combined with the rest of the article.
Please post any comments on this issue on the talk page.

In certain situations, such as talking on the telephone, stuttering might increase, or it might decrease, depending on the anxiety level connected with that activity.

Under stress, people's voices change. They tense their speech-production muscles, increasing their vocal pitch. They try to talk faster. They repeat words or phrases. They add interjections, also known as "filler words", such as "uh." These are normal dysfluencies. A study found that under stress, non-stutterers went from 0% to 4% dysfluencies, for the simple task of saying colors. Stutterers went from 1% to 9%.[1]

Stuttering reduces stress 10%, as measured by systolic blood pressure.[2] Stuttering appears to reduce stress temporarily, but then cause stress, creating a cyclical pattern in which the stutterer stutters on the first syllable of the first word, then says the rest of the word and several more words fluently, then stutters again, then says a few more words fluently, and so on.

One study found that developmental stuttering and Tourette syndrome may be pathogenetically related.[3] Tics are exacerbated by stress, and when the affected person tries harder to control the undesired movement, the conditions can become more pronounced.Slp1 18:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Therapies for pre-school children

In the past, stuttering children received indirect therapy, which changed the parents' speech behaviors. Such indirect therapy has been proven ineffective. For example, popular websites[4][5] advise that parents should "speak slowly and in a relaxed manner"; make positive statements such as praise, and refrain from negative statements such as criticism; "pause before responding to your child's questions or comments," etc. Yet more than a dozen studies[6] found that such parental behavior had no effect on children's stuttering—or the effect was the opposite of what the parents intended. For example, when parents spoke slower, their children spoke faster and their stuttering increased.[7]

Speech-language pathologists now recommend direct therapy with young children. The target speech behaviors are similar to fluency shaping therapy, but various toys and games are used. For example, a turtle hand puppet may be used to train the slow speech with stretched syllables goal. When the child speaks slowly, the turtle slowly walks along. But when the child talks too fast, the turtle retreats into his shell.

There are bits of this that are sourced, but it is not complete or accurate, I believe. For example there is at least one study noted in Stuttering Treatment Research 1970–2005, Bothe et al American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.15 321-341 November 2006, that notes improvements in childhood stuttering following a parental program. A Lidcombe type program is not described at all and this is a major omission given that this is the most common intervention in childhood and also has lots of positive research results (see Bothe et al again)--Slp1 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Childhood treatments

[edit] Therapies for school-age children

A study of 98 children, 9 to 14 years old, compared three types of stuttering therapy.[8] One year after therapy, the percentage of children with disfluency rates under 2% were:

  1. 48% of the children who were treated by a speech-language pathologist.
  2. 63% of the children whose parents were trained by a speech-language pathologist to do speech therapy at home (but the children weren't treated by the speech-language pathologists).
  3. 71% of the children who were treated by a computer-based anti-stuttering program, with minimal interaction from speech-language pathologists.

The results for children with disfluency rates under 1% were even more striking:

  1. 10% of the children from the clinician-based program.
  2. 37% of the children from the "parent-based" program.
  3. 44% of the children from the computer-based program.

In other words, the computers were most effective, the parents next most effective, and the speech-language pathologists were least effective. At the 1% disfluency level, the computers and the parents were about four times more effective than the speech-language pathologists.

Parents should realize that school speech-language pathologists are trained to treat a wide variety of speech and language disorders. Many don't have training or experience with stuttering, and few specialize in stuttering. Many school districts are underfunded and school speech-language pathologists have caseloads of 40 or more children, seeing each child for perhaps twenty minutes twice a week, or even doing group therapy with several children who have different communication disorders. Parents whose child's speech isn't improving may want to consider additional treatments beyond their school's speech-language pathologist:

  • Seeing a board-certified Fluency Specialist.
  • Asking the school speech-language pathologist to train the parents to do therapy at home, increasing therapy time to perhaps twenty minutes twice a day, every day. The speech-language pathologist may recommend using computer software or an electronic device to assist in home practice.

[edit] Therapies for teenagers

One strategy for treating teenagers who stutter is to include peers in therapy. This is usually the teenager's best friend. This can improve the stuttering teenager's motivation in therapy, and also the friend can give reminders outside of therapy for the stuttering teenager to use his speech target behaviors.

Another strategy is to encourage a stuttering teenager to develop a passion for an activity requiring speech. This could be getting involved in the school's drama club, or doing a science project about stuttering. Bully programs have sometimes told kids not to beat up kids who stutter.

Large chunks are unsourced, and contains US-advice commentary and advice. One study is (unaccurately) described in much too much detail (it was EMG, not computers), while the many, many other studies and approaches are not described at all. --Slp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fluency shaping therapy

A study followed 42 stutterers through the three-week fluency shaping program. The program also included psychological treatment to reduce fears and avoidances, discussing stuttering openly, and changing social habits to increase speaking. The therapy program reduced stuttering from about 15–20% stuttered syllables to 1–2% stuttered syllables. About 70% of the stutterers had satisfactory fluency 12 to 24 months after therapy. About 5% were marginally successful. About 25% had unsatisfactory fluency.[9]

Removing study which is described in much too much detail. What we need is an overview of the many studies that have looked at the efficacy of this approach.Slp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuttering modification therapy

Only one long-term efficacy study of a stuttering modification therapy program has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This study concluded that the program "appears to be ineffective in producing durable improvements in stuttering behaviors."[7]

Removing study since there is more than one study (see Laiho, Auli, and Klippi, Anu from International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. Vol 42(3), May-Jun 2007) and to be consistent with other sections. --Slp1 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another section moved from article

It is important to note that stuttering does not affect intelligence and that stutterers are sometimes wrongly perceived as being less intelligent than non-stutterers. This is mainly due to the fact that stutterers often resort to a practice called word substitution, where words that are difficult for a stutterer to speak are replaced with less-suitable words with one or two syllables that are easier to pronounce.[citation needed] This often leads to simple, short, and awkward sentences which give an impression of feeble mindedness. A stutterer may take longer to answer a question or respond, because it takes them longer to get a word out. They have to think about every word they are going to say and how they might modify that word so that a stuttering moment won't occur or won't be as intense. Stutterers often feel great frustration because they know what they want to say, but can not translate it into spoken language using the same words they are thinking of or the way they would like to. They may also feel that non-stutters do not have the patience to wait and listen for the prolonged time it could take them to complete what they want to say. Stuttering is a communicative disorder that affects speech; it is not a language disorder—although a person's use of language is often affected or limited by a stutter.[10][11] Slp1 01:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I am a stutterer, and find it almost offensive that blocks are referred to as an "abnormal hesitation or pausing before speech" in the opening section. That does not describe at all the tension which causes the pause, and makes it sound like blocks are controllable, or something psychological. Isn't there any better way to put it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.55.19 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I can see how that can be offensive and it also doesn't sound very objective. How about something like, "Blocks are involuntary physical tension resulting in a tightening of the larnyx causing a pause or reflexive disruption of speech" [2], [3] Fredsmith2 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a stutterer too. I don't have much to say about your comment other than stuttering takes different forms and can be classified many ways. The line as it was (since changed) didn't offend me in the least. Stuttering is an abnormality in the speech mechanism. I really just wanted to remark that stuttering is one of those condtions that someone who doesn't stutter (short of a speech pathologist specializing in stuttering) almost has no right to really comment about. It really is a condition (like many others) that someone without the problem really has no idea what it's like to live with. That said, as long as a wikipedia article is unbiased and factually correct, I really can't take issue with it. I think what I'm trying to find out is, how many people that edited and commented on this article are actually stutterers?Zerotta (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stammering as a term

Are we certain that "stammering" is the more common term in the UK? Everyone I've said that to here has no idea what I mean. "Oh, you mean stuttering," they say. And, no, I don't generally stammer when I say "stammer," so it can't be that! - 79.73.145.143 13:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. It certainly used to be, and still appears to be the more 'official word' (British Stammering Association, The Michael Palin Centre for Stammering Children, and the Association for Research into Stammering in Childhood and more too). I wouldn't be surprised if stuttering was gaining currency in daily conversation in the UK, though, as with many other words that have travelled across the Atlantic (in both directions!)--Slp1 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singing as a cure-all?

There's a lot of attention given to singing as a cure-all for stuttering. However, from what I can tell, singing as a stuttering cure isn't very well-documented. This article makes it seem like singing will help almost any stutterer. Is this true? Is it really documented anywhere that SLPs use singing therapy as a cure-all for stuttering? Fredsmith2 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a technique that is commonly used as far as I am concerned (I've never heard of it) and there have been no efficacy studies about it to my knowledge. There is no cure-all for stuttering, though many people find they are fluent when they sing. Of interest is that singing and talking come from different parts of the brain, and any kind of "distraction often works (at least to begin with) people who stutters.--Slp1 23:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This makes sense. Maybe we should remove the singing references that aren't well-documented, then. Fredsmith2 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole article is about to get a massive revamp as part of Featured Article Review. I hope to get start the process in the next few days. Any help gratefully received. Slp1 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Even during my worst period of stammering when I was a teenager I never stammered whilst I sang. That said, I cannot recall it ever being mentioned as a therapy. My own experience of stammering saw it start to fade after I left a school that I hated and then finally went after some creative thinking and a change of accent in college, after persistent trouble with my sibilants that became worse when I worried about it. I think that talk of a 'cure' founders on the fact that stammering can be said to be unique to each individual. Darkmind1970 09:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to stutter when singing that is why we don't really hear Carly Simon stutter. I do stutter and I learned that in speech therapy. AKenjiB —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKenjiB (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to "Stuttering Treatment Research 1970-2005"

I removed the sentence "In a 2006 review of the efficacy of stuttering treatments, none of the studies on altered auditory feedback met the criteria for experimental quality, such as the presence of control groups." This sentence refered to the article (ref name =Bothe2006I>Bothe AK,Davidow JH, Bramlett RE, Ingham RJ (2006). "Stuttering Treatment Research 1970-2005: I. Systematic Review Incorporating Trial Quality Assessment of Behavioral, Cognitive, and Related Approaches". American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 15: 321-341. PMID 17102144.  </ref). This article is a secondary review and Wikipedia policy says to reference primary sources whenever possible. The authors say they looked at 162 studies of stuttering treatments, but I counted the references (on page 327) and there are only 48 studies listed. Referencing a secondary source that doesn't reference its primary sources is a bad idea. Regarding altered auditory feedback anti-stuttering devices, the article looked at three studies of masking and three studies of the SpeechEasy device. The authors didn't look at 50+ other studies of altered auditory feedback anti-stuttering devices, in other words, they sampled about 10% of the published studies in this area. I'm curious what the three masking studies were. Did these studies look at the relatively ineffective white noise masking, or the more effective sine wave masking? When were these studies published? Were they high-stress (e.g., public speaking, telephone calls to local businesses) or low-stress (reading aloud in a speech clinic) speaking situations? I don't know, these three studies aren't referenced. I suggest not using this article for other references, due to other shortcomings. A criterion in this article was that the treatment had to result in less than 5% stuttering. A better measure would have been a statistically significant reduction in stuttering. For example, a severe stutterer who droped from 50% stuttered syllables to 10% stuttered syllables would be considered a failure in this article, but a mild stutterer who dropped from 6% stuttered words to 3% stuttered words would be considered a success. (And if an average word has three syllables, the resulting speech would be about the same.) Another criterion was that the study had to have a speaking task outside the speech clinic. A better criterion would have been to classify speaking tasks as low stress or high stress, regardless of where they took place. E.g., a public speaking task in the speech clinic is harder than reading aloud outside the speech clinic. Another criterion was that studies had to include a six-month follow-up. A follow-up study is desirable but not essential for all studies. The groupings of studies was debatable. For example, under the category of "response contingencies" was included a 1972 study of two boys (three and four years old), whose stuttering caused a puppet stage to go dark. I haven't read that study but I heard that other things were done in the darkness to scare the children. Lidcombe therapy is placed in the same category! I would have classified Lidcombe as parent-administered direct therapy, not as "response contingencies." I could go on but you get my point.--TDKehoe (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, I have reverted your removal if this sourced information. I think you are incorrect in your analysis that primary sources are to be preferred, quite the reverse in fact (see WP:RS WP:NOR) though in any case, a peer-reviewed journal article is not a primary source by WP definition. Your criticisms may be entirely appropriate but until they are published by a reliable source they remain Original research.Since you also have a conflict of interest in this matter,[[4]] you should follow the conflict of interest guidelines and make suggestions on the talkpage of this article rather making edits yourself. --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Slp1|Slp1] wrote: "you are incorrect in your analysis that primary sources are to be preferred, quite the reverse in fact..." However Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it says: "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear." This means that Wikipedia policy is to reference primary sources wherever possible instead of secondary sources.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Slp1|Slp1] wrote: "peer-reviewed journal article is not a primary source by WP definition." [primary sources in various disciplines] says: "In scientific literature, a primary source is the original publication of a scientist's new data, results, and theories." That means that a study written by the scientist(s) who conducted the research and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is a primary source.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Slp1|Slp1] wrote: "see WP:RS WP:NOR)" I don't see anything about this matter in either article, please quote specifically what you are referring to.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Slp1|Slp1] wrote: "Your criticisms may be entirely appropriate but until they are published by a reliable source they remain Original research." I don't see criticizing poor-quality sources listed as a form of original research in the WP:NOR. Please quote specifically what you are referring to.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Slp1|Slp1] wrote: "Since you also have a conflict of interest in this matter,[[5]] you should follow the conflict of interest guidelines and make suggestions on the talkpage of this article rather making edits yourself." WP:COI says: "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest. Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace." Please let me know if I ever write anything that is biased.--67.173.255.60 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Thomas, I am not able to respond in detail to your comments immediately, but will do so as soon as possible, hopefully tomorrow, but maybe not till Tuesday. My internet access is limited for the next 24 hours. I apologize. Slp1 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to "Pseudoscience and the SpeechEasy"

I will also remove the material referencing (ref name="bothe2007">Bothe AK, Finn P, Bramlett RE (2007). "Pseudoscience and the SpeechEasy: Reply to Kalinowski, Saltuklaroglu, Stuart, and Guntupalli (2007)". American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 16: 77–83. PMID 17329678. </ref). Again, this is a secondary source, and Wikipedia policy is to reference primary sources wherever possible. This article is particularly questionable because it's part of an exchange of letters debating another group of scientists (i.e., other material published in the same journal is directly opposed to the views expressed in this article). The first sentence I will remove says: "Altered auditory feedback, so that stutterers hears their voice differently, has been used for over 50 years in the treatment of stuttering." I had believed that the effect of DAF on stuttering was discovered by Israel Goldiamond at the University of Illinois in 1964. This article, however, references a 1982 paper by Charles Van Riper which references two papers published in 1961. In other words, this is a tertiary reference! I haven't read either 1961 paper but the title of one paper doesn't say anything about stuttering and it wasn't published in a speech pathology journal. The second study was published in a European journal that is difficult to find in the United States so I can't get the original study. The second sentence I will remove that references this paper is: "Studies of these techniques have had mixed results, with some stutterers showing substantial reductions in stuttering, while others improved only slightly or not at all." What the paper says is that Van Riper's 1982 survey of DAF research found mixed results. While I haven't read those studies, I suspect they weren't conducted according to current clinical standards. And, again, that's a tertiary reference. The authors don't cite the huge body of research with DAF and stuttering conducted since 1982. Regarding FAF, the authors say they read only two studies, ignoring dozens of other studies! And in one of these studies the data was later reanalyzed and it turned out that the study's concusions were the opposite of what the data found (there was an exchange of letters in the journal that published the original study).--TDKehoe (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The same points made above apply.Slp1 (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The sentences you object to are:

“In a 2006 review of the efficacy of stuttering treatments, none of the studies on altered auditory feedback met the criteria for experimental quality, such as the presence of control groups." (referenced from Bothe AK,Davidow JH, Bramlett RE, Ingham RJ (2006). "Stuttering Treatment Research 1970-2005: I. Systematic Review Incorporating Trial Quality Assessment of Behavioral, Cognitive, and Related Approaches". American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 15: 321-341.. )

"Altered auditory feedback, so that stutterers hears their voice differently, has been used for over 50 years in the treatment of stuttering." (referenced from Bothe AK, Finn P, Bramlett RE (2007) Pseudoscience and the SpeechEasy: Reply to Kalinowski, Saltuklaroglu, Stuart, and Guntupalli (2007)". American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 16: 77–83.)

"Studies of these techniques have had mixed results, with some stutterers showing substantial reductions in stuttering, while others improved only slightly or not at all." (also referenced from Bothe AK, Finn P, Bramlett RE (2007).

The reasonings you give are that:

1. You consider the articles cited to be secondary sources (ie they are review articles, not the original research papers describing experimental studies), and that they are of “poor quality” . You use Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it to suggest that primary sources (ie original research articles) are preferred in WP articles.

Response: If you check WP:PSTS you will note that for the purposes of writing articles, WP official policy defines primary, secondary and tertiary sources somewhat differently the way you have done and actually require editors to use great caution in using primary sources, which would actually be the raw data of a study (or an eyewitness account of something, or an original historical document etc), without any analysis, interpretation etc. The articles in question were published in one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals in the field of speech –language pathology, and written by some of the leading experts in the field. They are secondary sources as described by WP:PSTS. “A secondary source draws on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims”, and (along with tertiary sources) are most desirable sources for this article.
Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it indicates that one should not use intermediate sources to claim that a book or an article says one thing without either checking the source directly or without it clear that one has not done so in the citation. This does not apply in this case because the statements are actually the conclusions of the articles’ authors based on their research and analysis of the studies they have examined. For example, it is Bothe et al who are claiming that AAF research has been going on for 50 years, and that an overview of the research suggests that AAF works for some but not all stutterers.

2.You do not agree with the accuracy of the statements and the studies: for example you disagree the criteria chosen for the systematic review in the 2006 paper, and you have different information about when AAF started to be used than that noted in the 2007 paper.

Response: You are certainly entitled to disagree with the authors and their methods, criteria etc but you need to take up your comments up with the authors and the journal and their reviewers. Your criticisms and suggestions are original research by WP definitions unless they have been published by reliable sources. I personally disagree with your criticisms regarding the 2007 article, as the authors refer to many more studies than just Van Riper’s in coming to their conclusions. They also specifically mention the 50+ plus articles you allude to, but criticize these studies as being tangential, often published in journals outside the field, and lacking in the social, ecological, and empirical grounds that you yourself note. But these are moot points in any case. The statement “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth” is a core of WP’s policy on verifiability. The statements you wish to remove are well-sourced from peer-reviewed journals. However, we can certainly discuss changes if you can find reliable sources to back up the points you have made.

As noted above, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the sorts of sources that should be used in this article. Review articles play a very valuable role in providing an expert overview, analysis and synthesis of the various treatment and experimental studies. In fact, according to another, highly experienced editor, they are actually the preferred sources for an article of this type “… generally other FAs refer to the highest-quality peer-reviewed sources, usually recent reviews printed in the highest-quality journals.”

From [6] I am disappointed to see that you have apparently retracted your agreement to stop editing articles in which you have a conflict of interest. Assuming 67.173.255.60 is you, that is! [7]. Thomas, you have financial interest in promoting anti-stuttering devices. The Conflict of Interest guidelines for this are very clear:

“If….you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing; then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased). Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially-motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them.”

Your recent edits have been to try to remove sourced sentences which place your products (and those of others) in a less desirable light. This seems less than neutral editing to me, and comes on top of other, similar, editing patterns. I strongly advise you to stop editing this and other related articles, including Anti-stuttering devices and restrict your comments and suggestions to the talkpage. Please take a look at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to see how seriously these issues are viewed by other editors. Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today's edits

I have reverted today's edits, starting with Stutterman's revert [8] to a much older version of the article with incorrect formatting and much original research. I do not agree (obviously) that my edits and those of Sandy Georgia have "messed up the article." Slp1 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post so I do apologise if it is not. I'm writing as I had an external link removed from this page. It was for the McGuire Programme which is a treatment programme for people with stutters. I myself have a stutter and have found it to be of great benefit. I would like to let others know also about the programme and don't see why this link should be removed as it is very relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.161.137 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is exactly the right place to post about this! The reason that the link keeps getting removed is that it violates WP's guidelines on External Links in that it "primarily exist to sell products or services." I am really glad that you found the program so useful, but this isn't the place to advertise it. You'll notice that there are no other commercial therapy sites there either, for the same reason. Sorry, and I hope that explains it for you! --Slp1 (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If a stutterer reproduces, would his offspring be a stutterer too?

if so we should include this - hell, if not we should include this too. Radiohumor (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is already in the article: see [9]. To summarize there is likely a genetic component, but it is nowhere as simple as your question implies. So the answer is "No, it would be very unlikely, but slightly more likely than if the person wasn't a stutterer. --Slp1 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
In my experience, no. No one else in my entire family stutters. My son is 2 years old so it's too early to tell with him. I certainly hope not for his sake.Zerotta (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've kind of come across that the more I'm around people that they begin to stutter or stammer more as time goes on. So even if stuttering is not a genetic trait your children might pick up on it just from being around you. This may sound stupid but its just in my case it seems this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.15.12 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)