Here is a cure for stammering 100 years ago, spread by Dr Travis, a professor in pseudo-science at the University of Southern California. And here is pseudo-science and a cure for stammering today spread by Dr Rosemary Hayhow in this article's abstract:
The Lidcombe Program is a parent-based behavioural treatment for early stuttering. Quantitative studies have shown it is an efficacious treatment for eliminating stuttering in children of 6 years and younger. This study explores parents' experiences in order to understand more about the process of implementing the Lidcombe Program. Twenty-one in-depth qualitative interviews took place with parents of 14 children who showed a range of responses to treatment. Six parents were interviewed twice so that changes over time could provide further insights. The data was analysed using an inductive approach supported by NVivo qualitative software. This interview data suggests that parents' experiences of the Lidcombe Program are influenced by their ways of making sense of the principles and procedures of the programme and how these fit with their understanding of stuttering, parenting and their children who stutter. Parents experience the Lidcombe Program as satisfying and relatively simple when therapy proceeds straightforwardly. When progress is slower or erratic parents perceive the treatment as more complex and confusing. Failure to adequately address difficulties with the Lidcombe Program can reduce its therapeutic impact and lead to parental distress. These parents' perspectives provide knowledge about the Lidcombe Program that is not recorded in the published quantitative studies.I simply cannot believe that she wrote "Quantitative studies have shown it is an efficacious treatment for eliminating stuttering in children of 6 years and younger." First of all, she has not understood the
purpose of the abstract, which should summarize the content of her research article and not give her interpretation of other research. Second, I have told her x-times that I do not agree with these statements, but no she keeps on repeating statistical research like a parrot. A parrot who has absolutely not understanding of statistics and chooses to trust the statistician of one research group. Third, even if some might find it acceptable to ignore my advice, she is very well aware that others have voice similar opinions. So at the very least, she could give a balanced interpretation. In fact, she should have dropped this whole sentence.
I am always amazed by the insight of these studies:
Parents experience the Lidcombe Program as satisfying and relatively simple when therapy proceeds straightforwardly. When progress is slower or erratic parents perceive the treatment as more complex and confusing.So which kind of knowledge have we gained here? I could have told you that before any research. And note how she write "when progress is slower". Of course, for the ideologue Hayhow there is always some "progress".
Then she writes:
Failure to adequately address difficulties with the Lidcombe Program can reduce its therapeutic impact and lead to parental distress.She is clearly an ideologue. In her mind, Lidcombe is effective, and we must have a "failure to adequately address difficulties with the Lidcombe Program". Can you tell me how one adequately addresses the genes or brain deficiencies in children within the Lidcombe Program?
What she also does not recognize is that any intervention would lead to similar answers. So her research is not even Lidcombe specific.