In Defence of Smooth Speech Treatments: A Response to Onslow and Ingham's Paper “Whither Prolonged Speech? The Disquieting Evolution of a Stuttering Therapy Procedure”

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to provide an alternative view to that presented by Onslow and Ingham in a paper entitled “ Whither prolonged speech? The disquieting evolution of a stuttering therapy procedure” published in the previous issue of this journal. While there are some points which are positive and constructive in their paper, the major premise they have used in their argument and the conclusion reached needs challenging. Their major premise consisted of two parts. First, prolonged speech variants are unsatisfactory frontline therapies and second, that there are other superior therapies which should be used. Their conclusion demands that prolonged speech treatments should be used or offered only as a last resort when all else has failed. It is argued, however, that quite the reverse is true. While remaining eclectic in nature, the clinician must keep an open mind on what treatment best suits their clients. Prolonged speech type therapies have been shown to be efficient at helping many persons cope with their stuttering and to eventually integrate into society. Thus, while not all clients should receive such treatment, prolonged speech should be viewed as a frontline therapy for those subjects who are suitable.

This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit: