Home > Stuttering.Microblog > Stuttering research that is only partially flawed…

Stuttering research that is only partially flawed…

So I ran across this article today, which represents stuttering research that is only partially flawed.  In essence, the authors (*ahem*) document that various types of real-time and delayed visual feedback enhances perceived fluency in those who stutter. (In other words, a mirror and delayed visual feedback reduces overt stuttering frequency.)  The results are quite robust, with a large effect size–but due to the small sample, no differences between a mirror and delayed visual feedback could be revealed.  (I suspect that a larger sample would have done the trick.)  The primary flaw of this study can be found in nearly all the others; the measurement and quantification of “stuttering” is inherently flawed…

Be Sociable, Share!
Categories: Stuttering.Microblog Tags:
  1. BK
    March 24th, 2009 at 16:29 | #1

    Just wondering what you have heard if anything about the Pagoclone results. They are opening up a clinical trial here in Phoenix and I’ve been invited to participate. I have my initial visit next week and am anxiously looking forward to it.

    [Reply]

    Greg @ Stuttering.me Reply:

    Yeah–the Pagaclone data looks pretty compelling, and I’m really glad to see the studies move forward. I hope you can keep us up to date w/ your experiences!

    [Reply]

  2. Michael Ritter
    March 25th, 2009 at 17:14 | #2

    Could you expand on that last sentence of yours? Have you written here about the measurement of stuttering before?

    [Reply]

    Greg @ Stuttering.me Reply:

    Ach! Yeah–I need to talk about this, I guess. I have yet to do so, but it’s not a ‘micropost’. Maybe this weekend, when I’ve got more time…

    [Reply]

    Greg @ Stuttering.me Reply:

    Actually–I guess I have (at least a little):
    http://stuttering.me/?p=831

    [Reply]

  3. Michael Ritter
    March 26th, 2009 at 16:54 | #3

    One other thing – I noticed in your abstract that you referred to your subjects as ‘those who stutter’. I’m wondering why you didn’t call them stutterers, given your recent post on first-person language.

    [Reply]

    Greg @ Stuttering.me Reply:

    Ha! To be honest, if you want to get published, you’ve got to play the game…

    The stuff that’s been edited out of my submissions is long and distinguished. Once, ASHA refused to let me cite stuttering as a medical condition, for example…

    [Reply]

    Michael Ritter Reply:

    That’s something I’d like to hear more about, if you ever have the time. I mean, I have no idea what the Journal of Fluency Disorders or the Journal of Communication Disorders will not print.

    [Reply]

    Greg @ Stuttering.me Reply:

    Oh–You know I can’t publish dirty laundry online!

  1. No trackbacks yet.