He falls into the common traps:
(a) equating perceived success in an outcome trial with success of the method itself. (it could well be that other treatments are as effective, and success is not due to Lidcombe specific issues.)
(b) He did not mention the lack of good long-term follow-up. The only follow-up with small sample size did not show results above natural recovery, even if I assume that the considerable drop out did not relapse.
(c) He tells us a wonderful story of how he "cured" a boy, without telling us that it could very well have been natural recovery.
He also attacks "this experimental psychologist Pete Howell who feels that it is inhuman or heartless to treat children with Lidcombe" for his article in Nature. When in fact, Pete Howell only wrote:
More controversially, some researchers believe they can induce fluency in people, children in particular, using verbal operant procedures, similar to the reward and punishment techniques used to train dogs and other animals.He only said that (a) the method is controversial, (b) conditioning is what you also do to train dogs. So what's wrong with his statement. He does not say that it is ethically wrong to train kids because that is how you train dog!! Barry Guitar should read the article!
I was always suspicious about Barry Guitar's credentials as a scientist. Especially after hearing his "naive" talk on his work on temperament. (Check out Per Alm's deconstruction of his temperament work. Sorry don't have a reference right now) For me, Guitar is a dedicated therapist, and I would recommend him to others. But he is a mediocre scientist in the mantle of "a respected authority" and an academic professorship draining resources and young brains from good scientists.