The listener will note that Marie-Christen is a bit scared of misspeaking and of her findings... She might be an overly cautious person by nature, but if a friend of a friend told you that she actually got bullied from someone in a distant land and was concerned about her job security, you can understand why she behaves the way she behaves.
The key statements are
- The large-scale study started in 2007 did not find a significant overall difference between the two treatment approaches: Lidcombe and Demand and Capacities treatment.
- She expects the study to be published within months.
- She refutes that it is only ethical to use Lidcombe.
- Not sure about subgroups, i.e. one treatment better for some children.
- She believes that Lidcombe and DC are better than no treatment and really make a difference and contribute to recovery, and can speed up recovery, but as far as I understood this is not based on hard evidence. The study only looks at the relative difference between the two treatments not the absolute.
- If not in terms of fluency but to keep the problem to a milder stuttering and good psychosocial adaptation.
- A couple of children did not work well with Lidcombe. Some children are not fluent on a word level. Some children can be very fluent on short sentences. Kid does not like contingencies.
- They talk about an interesting therapy component, namely to practise nonsensical words.
I do not believe that the study has shown that ANY treatment is actually better than no treatment. And I actually believe that no treatment can achieve full recovery much better than natural recovery, because it is a neurobiological phenomenon. They have not talked about neurobiological limits to recovery. This is very important, because if something is neurobiologically messed up, you can only do so much by shaping behaviours, especially for very complex brain processes as speaking as opposed to simple motor skills.
But I do think that treatment helps to get a good psychosocial adaptation and to cater for the parents' needs.