Adrian writes convincingly in support of my suspicion (apart from misspelling its as it's! :-) :
As a Hollins graduate, I'll simplify this argument. ... in my experience these techniques simply don't work very well. I attended the original three-week session and I kept up with all but two of my original group of ten after the course. I believe all but one of this group was considered fluent after the end of the course, yet all were stuttering at pre-course levels speaking with me on the phone a few weeks after we left the safety of the clinic. For me personally I was 100% fluent in the clinic following therapy, but I was still stuttering severely across the street at Hardee's ordering a cheeseburger.
Tom is correct to question these misleading success rates. It is very easy to produce fluent speech and have positive viewpoints immediately following therapy. It is another to have continued fluency in all situations after being away from the clinic for a length of time. Hollins has used these misleading statistics as the cornerstone of it's marketing and it's economic success for decades.
Adrian
Adrian, do you think you can provide more details of the people? Maybe we can publish something on my blog like: comments from x out of y people of Adrian's group on their fluency? There should be balance of reporting on Hollins / HRCI.
19 comments:
Not very good, and the cost is expensive.
Hollins is famous because of Annie Glenn....
Any Science research or independent publications
Tom - Of course, we have to be careful of selection bias. People's success or failure affects their willingness to report. Also, it affects their availability. People who are disappointed by the long-term effects are less likely to be available to follow-up.
By analogy, among our university classmates, the ones who are easy to find are those who have become doctors or lawyers or CEOs or professors. The ones that are hard to find are those that have not managed a successful career and thus are more likely to withdraw from being in contact with more their successful classmates.
Similarly, in a Hollins class, the people who continue to get some benefit or at least remain hopeful are the ones who are likely to keep in touch, while those who did not have a positive experience are likely to drift away and therefore be unavailable to an informal survey.
I'm sure this effect has been well studied. I don't know the results, but I suspect that there's a systematic bias toward positive or negative reporting when people self-select for a survey.
Having said that, I don't mean to suggest that the results are worthless. They just can't be pushed too far.
Hollins is also famous for John Stossel from 20/20 fame. He is a mild stutterer and I guess easy onsets help him. Or was he paid off?
I went roughly 10 years ago and did keep in touch with a few from my group. They all still did struggle and could not handle using the technique in real life. Sounds like capacity and demands here. I, as a 33 year old PWS (who started at age 12), find the Mcguire Costal breathing technique much better. It is easier and sounds more natural albeit slow with long pauses. I find that the pauses mask my spasmodic articulator behavior so the output is much more relaxed. I just have a hard time resisting time pressure! I could probably do a good presentation with the technique but can't have a one to one conversation due to losing content via time constraints (or my listener getting impatient!)
Hollins is a master of marketing. They masterfully throw percentages out that are technically true, but in reality are meaningless. The ipod gimmick is another of their clever marketing ploys. And of course 98% percent would recommend the program after three weeks. These people have just devoted three weeks and several thousands of dollars to this course and don't want to admit to themselves that they have most likely failed. It took me several years and two refreshers for me to admit to myself that I had been swindled. Also, for many, the false fluency in the clinic environment may be the first fluency they have ever experienced. For some this is in itself is a reason to stay positive.
I don’t understand how Hollins has been allowed to enjoy a respectable existence. Ronald Webster is still held in high esteem by many, while people like Martin Schwartz has been vilified. Schwartz was forced out of ASHA, yet Hollins clinicians (including its clinical supervisor) have, to my knowledge, been left alone by ASHA.
I think part of the issue here may be the concept of cognitive dissonance. After the big financial, time, and emotional investment--people may not be all too excited to publicly admit their true personal experiences.
I've yet to meet a single person that said, "Hollins' changed my life!" ... yet I've met many with the feelings expressed here on this board.
Just a thought...
Greg
http://stuttering.me
Regarding "Perhaps the single biggest wrong-turn in the history of speech pathology."
Interesting comment. Pretty easy to go after dead people...
Not sure Van or Dean Williams would see it quite your way, but WTF...
Arrogance reveals fools and wannabes... From all of us who mistakenly took the wrong turn -Thanks for showing us!
//www.iowa.edu/~cyberlaw/wj/wjbib.html
//www.iowa.edu/~cyberlaw/wj/wjcv.html
//www.iowa.edu/~cyberlaw/wj/wjwhowho.html
Let’s look at the numbers from HCRI website.
(I have put my comments, personal opinions, and percentages under each bullet item, I "graduated" from Hollins back in 2000 or so)
•98% of HCRI program graduates say they would recommend this advanced stuttering therapy to others who stutter.
I agree with this percentage. After spending $ 5,000 and three weeks working very hard, day and night to perfect the use of targets and becoming 100% fluent for the first time in your life. You better believe you would recommend this therapy to everyone that stuttered.
•93% of clients attain normal levels of speech fluency by the end of our 12-day program.
I agree with this percentage. I guess they shortened the three week program to 12 days. I can say first hand from my treatment at HCRI that we all obtained “normal” levels of speech fluency by the end of our course.
•For many HCRI graduates, stuttering therapy is a one-time experience; fluent speech has replaced stuttering and additional treatment is not necessary.
This line is up for interpretation. How many is many? I do know many people out there that went back a few times. I went back for an additional refresher. I needed to spend that additional week, $ 2,000 more, and 2 years of my life blaming myself for not working hard enough. I always thought 1 + 1 = 2. It was that additional year I needed under my belt to really convince myself that stuttering was not my fault and that Fluency was not the only piece to my puzzle. How many times do you let a “Friend” screw you over before ending the friendship? HCRI did not directly screw me over they just provided me with a one Tool. It was my bad for not knowing that there was more to it than fluency.
•Follow-up studies show that 70% to 75% retain fluent speech when evaluated one and two years post therapy.
This line is up for interpretation. These percentages can’t be acquired. They can’t be acquired by the iphone either. Stuttering is too transient and internal to ever know how much fluency is actually being retained. Now I would like to throw some numbers out there too. These are my numbers from talking with graduates of HCRI, from listening to the heartfelt stories of losing the short lived heady fluency that is generated from intensive programs.
10% of the people immediately lose fluency after they return to their natural environment and gain no lasting fluency.
50% of the people lose most fluency after 1 month.
20% of the people lose most fluency after 3 months.
10% of the people keep most of their fluency for a year or 2 by working 1 to 2 hours a day on targets and going to refresher courses. Likely missing the point of this one time therapy treatment and being driven by the chase for the fluency God.
8% of the people fall somewhere between the above percentages.
1.5% of the people likely retain fluent speech by using the targets in the prescribed manner, all of the time.
0.5% of the people may permanently retain fluency in the sense that people may consider a cure. Possibly, the physical use of the targets brings the rest of the puzzle into alignment and the person’s physiology takes over plowing new speech pathways in the brain which are used from then on.
I think that Hollins thinks that they can advertise this because, 1.we don't know or are not told the selection process used in deciding on who to contact after they leave the clinic and 2. they feel that they can do this because, after all, a very high percentage of people (95% +) ARE fluent after the 3 an now 2 week program and 3. the people who can complain are, well, too embarassed to do that.....
All THAT HOLLINS HAD TO DO IS EXPLAIN THE PROCESS USED IN THE 75 % stat and that would do it....
I would honestly be one that would say "Hollins changed my life." I attended the program as a SEVERE stutterer 3 years ago, and I haven't stuttered since.
They don't claim that their program is a cure, they just give you the tools to overcome. If you don't practice the targets taught after the program, stuttering will return. If you don't put your heart into it it doesn't work as well, as one boy in my session proved.
Rebecca said that she was a severe stutterer and she took the program and hasn't stuttered since. This is a complete LIE and someone put her up to it. If she had said that her speech has improved a lot that would be believable but every stutterer knows that to say "they have not stuttered since" is not true and, well ,impossible. And if it is true, she keeps what she says to a minimum, is very controlling in how she answers people and does not have a lot of social interactions and she is still switching words and avoiding situtations and words and other things. I took the program and was very fluent until I started to use words I was avoiding and put myself into situations I was avoiding.
Tom,
I am starting to have serious conerns about the Hollins program.
I mean I already have had personal concerns about the Hollins progam and Dr. Webter and am considering legal avenues to complaintbut just take his postings at U Tube.
I have on many time posted respectable and professional and well thought out comments to the Hollins videos at U Tube. None of them have ever been printed and they are always reviewed first before considering that they be printed underneath the U TUBE Hollins videos.
Dr. Webster and his staff make every attempt to monitor criticisms of their therapy and block every one they deem undesirable which is ALL OF MINE.
Just go to U TUBE and you will see NO COMMENTS PRINTED THERE FOR ANY HOLLINS POSTING SO EVERYONE ELSE IS HAVING PROBLEMS.
What can you do about this and what do you think about this?
I've never been to Hollins but am considering applying.
I just wanted to point out to middlevillager, who is considering "legal avenues" (I presume he means venues), that not having his comments posted on Youtube is not enough basis for a lawsuit, sorry. I don't mean to be mean :) I just found your post a little amusing.
I agree with Rebecca. Hollins is a life changer, but only if you use the techniques taught all the time. It takes alot of effort. I attended the three week program when I was about 22, and I am 52 now. I also took a refresher course about 5 years ago. If I religiously apply the Hollins program techniques,I stutter, but not that much. My problem is that when my stuttering is under control, I stop working on my speech, and them my speech problems over time return. This is my fault, not the Hollins program.
Could you be more specific about how bad your stuttering gets,anonymous, when you stop using the Hollins targets? Why do you stop using the Hollins Targets, that would be interesting?????
HCRI offers a very valuable experience for people who stutter and probably offers the best program around which shows you in great detail why you stutter and gives you the tools to have control over your speech. The only problem with HCRI program is that if you don't completely understand the speech targets and how they work together to produce fluent speech during the initial 3 week program then you will probably never have the chance again to learn this unless you are wealthy, independent and can afford to not have to work and can attend HCRI refreshers and HCRI consultations at your leisure to re-learn what you have not understood which is not true for most people who have to take off from work or don't have enough fluent speech and self confidence to ask the right questions about what they did not understand. Standard HCRI refreshers and reunions are not adequate to handle questions of this type. Also the behavior modification format of the program is excellent for re-learning how to speak but also takes away from enabling you to be able to understand the lessons of the program due to its conditioning format of practicing many hours each day at the Institute during the 3 week program in isolation. Also it is likely that due to several changes and clarifications of speech targets over the years many people who took the earlier speech program were not exposed to the final iteration of the speech program and were cheated out of getting Dr. Webster"s full research and final program and Dr. Webster did not contact these people who took his PFSP program at PFSP Centers all over the country, Centers which he closed down leaving only Hollins because they were not providing the program correctly. In summary, people were used in earlier years to develop the final program and did not know this and were not told of changes to the program and why these Centers were closed. So although Dr. Webster has arrived at a final speech program there has been some dishonesty on his part in earlier years and it reflects on him now and his integrity I am sorry to say. However even though there is now finally a finalized speech program the problems I have outlined are still valid and true. The new technology introduced in the program does not address the problems I have outlined to a sufficient degree.
I posted reviews of HCRI at the Better Business Bureau website that monitors the Hollins Communications Institute. BBB printed them up and the website indicated that Hollins would receive copies of my comments. Well, after they were on display for several days THEY WERE REMOVED. It is my opinion that Hollins arranged to have them removed even though BBB had me sign a form indicating that I had posted comments which were true, WHICH THEY WERE, and that BBB will not accept responsibilities for the comments which I did not expect them to and signed their form accordingly. Here are the two comments for others to read and benefit from:
Review 1: " HCRI offers a very valuable experience for people who stutter and probably offers the best program around which shows you in great detail why you stutter and gives you the tools to have control over your speech. The only problem with HCRI program is that if you don't completely understand the speech targets and how they work together to produce fluent speech during the initial 3 week program then you will probably never have the chance again to learn this unless you are wealthy, independent and can afford to not have to work and can attend HCRI consultations at your leisure to re-learn what you have not understood which is not true for most people who have to take off from work or don't have enough fluent speech and self confidence to ask the right questions about what they did not understand. Standard HCRI refreshers and reunions, however, are not adequate to handle questions of this type. Also the behavior modification format of the program is excellent for re-learning how to speak but also takes away from enabling you to be able to understand the lessons of the program due to its conditioning format of practicing many hours each day at the Institute during the 2 week program in isolation. Also it is likely that due to several changes and clarifications of speech targets over the years many people who took the earlier speech program were not exposed to the final iteration of the speech program and did not get Dr. Webster"s full research and final program and Dr. Webster did not contact these people who took his earlier PFSP program at PFSP Centers all over the country, Centers which he closed down leaving only Hollins. In summary, people were used in earlier years to develop the final program and did not know it by providing Dr. Webster with feedback on speech target usage. So although Dr. Webster has arrived at a final speech program there has been some dishonesty on his part in earlier years and it reflects on him now and his integrity I am sorry to say. However even though there is now a final speech program the problems I have outlined are still valid and true. The new technology introduced in the program does not address the problems I have outlined to a sufficient degree. "
This is the second review of HCRI which BBB had printed and was on display for several days and then was removed:
Review #2: "Clarification on 1st review: Changes to one major speech target were introduced in approximately 1980. These changes were not adequately explained by PFSP clinicians in Hollins managed PFSP centers in various parts of the country. Even by 1984 these new targets were still not being adequately explained to clients, even at Hollins, according to someone who took PFSP at Hollins in 1984. Eventually in the late 1980"s these PFSP centers were closed down by Hollins because Hollins discovered that his program was not being delivered properly (in addition to the new target information not being adequately explained anyway which was already going on earlier). People who took the PFSP program prior to 1980 received an earlier version of the PFSP program. Also over the years the manuals for the PFSP program were revised to clarify instructions on speech targets. People who took the program earlier used manuals that were confusing in their descriptions of speech targets. People who took the program in PFSP clinics other than Hollins either received an earlier version of the program or received later a wrong version of the program- these clinics were closed only leaving Hollins. Hollins did not bother to tell these earlier clients that they may have an older version of the program or that they had received a wrong version of the program. If they were told they could have gone to Hollins to get the correct new version or if they were told Hollins should have provided this new correct info for free to all clients. By not telling people about these changes/incorrectly provided program, these clients walked around trying to get a PFSP program to work when it could not work and not even know it! As far as I know my experience is the same as others: we did not sign any paper agreeing to being part of an experiment. If you did sign such a document, fine, but how would you know of changes to the PFSP program. In essence, you got the idea that the PFSP program does not work or that iIT IS YOUR FAULT THAT IT DOES NOT WORK since Hollins advertises 90% ++ success rate, the same success rate in the 1980s and now!!!! Hollins gives very specific instructions on how to speak, very little detailed speech targets and percentages for how often they are done during the day. Early clients were probably being used as part of an experiment and did not even know it. Hollins says stutterers make "speech sounds incorrectly". FIne but don't change the targets, advertise 90%++ success rates and not tell earlier clients about the changes. Most people cannot decide on their own to go down to Hollins at great expense TO SEE if something changed. Older PFSP clients were not told about refreshers and reunions in the mail or by phone, only Hollins original clients. No one was told about PFSP center closings or why they were closed, Dr. Webster says that he wants "a person to have the best possible one time experiences". That is what he says now.
Correction: BBB indicated that they had accidently removed my comments and they are back on. DR WEBSTER ANSWERED MY COMMENTS AND I WROTE BACK TO HIM.
Comment from the Business 1st half only due to space restrictions, see the other half that follows below this:
" I first want to make the point that we do not have a person named LeRoy Jones in our client roster. There seems to be confusion on the part of this person about where and when he attended stuttering therapy. He may or may not have have participated in a version of my Precision Fluency Shaping Program that was offered by a clinician or clinicians at a location or locations other than here in Roanoke, Virginia. The response from L. Jones is factually incorrect, the inferences are faulty and the conclusions are erroneous. HCRI provides upfront data regarding the effectiveness of our stuttering therapy program: 93% of cases have attained normal levels of fluency by the end of the program. Our long-term follow-up data show that between 70 and 75 % of the cases retain normal levels of fluency at one and two year intervals after therapy. We also report that 98% of our clients would recommend this program to others. We do not represent our program to be anything other than what it is, a strongly effective treatment for most people who stutter. HCRI maintains a scholarship program in order to assist persons attend our therapy program who might not otherwise be able to afford it. We strive to assist as many people as possible with this program. During the course of the program clients work closely with highly experienced clinicians for approximately 90 to 100 hours. Every effort is made to assure that each client understands what is taking place at each step of the program. Extra training is provided in the event additional instruction is indicated. Few people fail to learn the basic fluency skills taught in our program; however, there are up to approximately 7% who do not learn these skills well. We have not yet identified any pretherapy measures that predict with acceptable reliability, which people will succeed and which ones will not. This remains an empirical question to this day. This critic has apparently been out of touch with his therapy program for a significant number of years. He misses the point that my therapy program is 12-days in duration and not three weeks. Years ago, the program was 19-days in duration. However, the 12-day version was implemented in 2002. The following statement made by the critic is not factually correct. “Also the behavior modification format of the program is excellent for relearning how to speak but also takes away from enabling you to be able to understand the lessons of the program due to its conditioning format of practicing many hours each day at the Institute during the 3 week program in isolation.” ....continued below....
Post a Comment