Friday, March 26, 2010

Another flaw in outcome for early intervention

I have discovered yet another potential issue with outcome trials in children. I sometimes hear that kids who stutter heavily are more likely to recover if that is true then one might get a disproportional increase of the average fluency of the group once he or she recovered.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

"another potential issue"
"I sometimes hear"
"if that is true"
"one might get"

If anybody else had written this here, you'd be ripping their head off.

Tom Weidig said...

Absolutely not!

I am being cautious, because I am not 100%. So I am throwing it out into the area for the lions to take apart.

If you look at all the crackpot awards, they always use words of certainty.


Tom

Anonymous said...

So, when the headline reads "Another flaw in outcome for early intervention" you're not crackpotty 100% certain?

Anonymous said...

He don't like that call. Not a very good call.

Comment Moderation will soon be enabled.

Anonymous said...

I'm hope comment moderation is soon enabled. It is a pity that some people ruin this great blog for the rest of us. It they don't like the blog then don't read it. Perhaps some of us should go over to the neurosemantics board and give these crackpots a taste of their own medicine.

Harry said...

"Perhaps some of us should go over to the neurosemantics board and give these crackpots a taste of their own medicine."

What makes you think it's the nuerosemantics lot posting these negative comments? Can it simply not be people who disagree with Tom. The orignal anonymous makes a valid point - if someone else had used such wishy-washy language ("if that is true"
"one might get" etc), then Tom would be called them psuedo-scientists.

"It they don't like the blog then don't read it. "
That's a cliche arguement - the whole point is about different people presenting different points of view - that's what encourages progress and clarity of thought.

If we always agree with one side or the other then we're as narrow-minded as can be.

Tom Weidig said...

>> What makes you think it's the nuerosemantics lot posting these negative comments? Can it simply not be people who disagree with Tom. The orignal anonymous makes a valid point - if someone else had used such wishy-washy language ("if that is true"
"one might get" etc), then Tom would be called them pseudo-scientists.

I am repeating myself: No! The crackpots don't say stuff like "One aspect of stuttering is psychological maladaptation, but others might exist. What is your opinion?" or "When I did X, I stuttered less.", but "Psychological maladaptation is causing you to stutter." and "X helped me so X caused stuttering".

Sign with your full name please.

Anonymous said...

"I am repeating myself"

Using pausing or prolongations might help to decrease the amount you repeat yourself. Cancellations are just part of the set of techniques suggested by those who use stuttering modification techniques. Becoming well versed in preprepatory sets is also highly recommended by those who use stuttering modification techniques. Just a suggestion...

Adrian said...

Harry, some log into this site under a a real or even fake name and ask valid questions of Tom, while others post as "anonymous" and simply attack him. I have no problem with the former but the latter are ruining this blog. I'm surprised you can't recognize that.

I wonder if Tom can moderate the posts from the anonymous posters and allow those of us who take the time to register to post freely.

Mark B. said...

Ambrose, Cox and Yairi did a study of "The Genetic Basis of Persistence and Recovery in Stuttering (Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, Vol. 40, 567-580, June 1997). They determined (to their own satisfaction) that recovery does not appear to be a milder form of stuttering. They say nothing about the opposite being true.

To be confident of their assertion, we would need to see their results replicated.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the first anonymous. Tom, this kind of assertion looks like you have made something up. Where DID you hear this "fact"? Or is it just your own thought? I don't care either way but I DO care that you are transparent over what is your personal opinion and what is science on this blog.

To my knowledge, severity has never been a predictor of recovery. Age, time since onset, family history of natural recovery and gender (girls are more likely to recover than boys) on the other hand, have been found to contribute.