Evidence for the treatment of co-occurring stuttering and speech sound disorder: A clinical case series

Implementation fidelity in parent-implemented interventions for stuttering

Knowledge of the fidelity with which interventions are delivered in research studies is crucial to meaningful examination of intervention impact. This paper presents a review of fidelity implementation (FOI) measurements in interventions jointly delivered by speech-language pathologists (SLP) and parents in research for preschool-aged children who stutter (CWS). Four key FOI components were examined: dosage, adherence, quality, responsiveness. Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this study. Articles were published between 1990 and 2020 described nine different interventions and examined CWS aged 2-6 years. No study reported all FOI components in both the clinical and the home setting and five did not report on any FOI component in either setting. The number of FOI components reported ranged from 0 to 4 in both clinical (M = 1.5) and home (M = 1.0) settings. Across studies, dosage was most often reported (n = 27, 75.0%) and responsiveness was least often reported (n = 16, 44.4%). The number of FOI components reported in articles did not increase over time, although a trend towards greater reporting in recent years was observed. Poor reporting of FOI in intervention research presents a serious methodological concern that impacts the ability of clinicians and researchers to interpret the findings of these studies. Rigorous measurement and reporting of FOI in future intervention studies is required in order to better inform evidence-based practices for interventions with CWS.

No other choice: Speech-Language Pathologists' attitudes toward using telepractice to administer the Lidcombe Program during a pandemic

PURPOSE

Telepractice has been shown to be a viable modality for the delivery of stuttering treatment. Since the advent of COVID-19, speech-language pathologists must adapt in-clinic treatments for online presentation. This research aimed to gather information from speech-language pathologists on their experiences of telepractice to deliver the Lidcombe Program to treat stuttering in young children.

METHODS

This paper presents the findings of an online survey that polled the clinical experiences of 106 speech-language pathologists who were delivering the Lidcombe Program via telepractice during COVID-19.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents were experienced clinicians from the United States and Canada who had attended a Lidcombe Program workshop. Prior to COVID-19, 80 % had provided some clinical services online (up to 10 % of the time), and at the start of COVID-19 public lockdown orders, 77 % viewed telepractice as both a necessity and an opportunity. Three months after the public lockdown orders, the large majority, 94 %, said that they would continue to use both telepractice and in-clinic treatment in the future. Technology issues, concerns about establishing the clinical relationship, and identification of mild stuttering featured as challenges of telepractice service delivery, while benefits included time efficiency, flexibility of scheduling, and improved clinical processes.

CONCLUSION

Respondents reported that the Lidcombe Program was easily translatable to telepractice and the majority intend to continue telepractice in the future.

After the RESTART trial: six guidelines for clinical trials of early stuttering intervention

BACKGROUND

The Rotterdam Evaluation Study of Stuttering Therapy randomized trial (RESTART) was seminal, comparing the Lidcombe Program with RESTART Demands and Capacities Model-based treatment (RESTART-DCM) for pre-school age children who stutter.

AIMS

To critique the methods of the RESTART trial to develop guidelines for its systematic replication and extension. Beyond that, to contribute to the refinement of existing methodological guidelines for early stuttering intervention.

METHOD

The discussion is organized around methodological issues of primary outcomes, treatment completion, clinician allegiance, treatment fidelity, age exclusions and no-treatment control reasoning.

MAIN CONTRIBUTION

We recommend six methodological guidelines to guide future clinical trials comparing the Lidcombe Program with RESTART-DCM, which can be applied to clinical trials of other early stuttering intervention methods: (1) incorporate a continuous measure of primary outcome; (2) ensure that all children in clinical trials have completed treatment; (3) eliminate potential bias due to clinician allegiance; (4) establish treatment fidelity within and beyond the clinic; (5) include children younger than 3 years in clinical trials; and (6) establish an estimate of treatment effect size at some stage of treatment development.

CONCLUSION

In addition to guiding future clinical research comparing RESTART-DCM and Lidcombe Program treatment, these recommendations may extend to influence positively other treatment developments for early stuttering.