"early stuttering intervention at a level which is demonstrated to be highly efficacious and supported by the strongest level of evidence."As I understand she is not an expert in stuttering so someone must have whispered in her ear and she refused, so far, to lend her other ear to an opposing opinion. Her statement is completely overblown. (check also my first response to the debate)
Let's deconstruct her statement: "demonstrated to be highly efficacious:"
This is simply not the case if you look at the long-term data and if you know, like me, the many cases clinicians tell me about where it did not work. Even Onslow, Packman, et al's recognize that
At the time of this follow-up, the children were aged 7-12 years, with a mean of 5 years post-randomization in the 2005 trial. Twenty of the 29 children in the treatment arm and eight of the 25 children in the control (no treatment) arm were able to be contacted. Of the children in the treatment group, one (5%) failed to complete treatment and 19 had completed treatment successfully and had zero or near-zero frequency of stuttering. Three of the children (16%) who had completed treatment successfully had relapsed after 2 or more years of speech that was below 1% syllables stuttered. Meaningful comparison with the control group was not possible because an insufficient number of control children were located and some of them received treatment after completing the trial.To conclude, the treatment was not "highly efficacious" at all, especially if you compare it to the natural recovery rate of 70%-80%. And due to the small number of 29 children, the statistics are bad. And there was no control group to control for natural recovery, so you cannot actually judge the relative performance to a non-treated group.
The statement "supported by the strongest level of evidence." is, as you can see, completely overblown.
Deborah Theodoros should seek independent counsel on this matter to counter the notion that her statement and her association projects a certain carelessness regarding dissenting opinion. She cannot just hear the arguments of those that have worked hard to create and establish, and then also measure the treatment; a clear conflict of interest. All in good intention but nevertheless Lidcombe is neither "highly efficacious" nor supported by "the strongest level of evidence."