I have been told recently that in some countries in Europe where ‘commenting’ on stuttering feels more problematic some clinicians have been moving towards only offering verbal contingencies for stutter-free speech, thereby omitting those for stuttered speech. Do you think there might be problems with this, what might they be and is there any evidence for what might happen if only contingencies for stutter-free speech are given?

It is still unclear which components of the Lidcombe Program make it effective. Is it the structured treatment times? Is it the verbal buy levitra in canada contingencies, and if so which ones? Or is it the combination of structured treatment and verbal contingencies? These questions still need to be answered, but what we do know from some preliminary research (Harrison et al, 2004) is that verbal contingencies for stuttered speech appear to be a functional component of the Lidcombe Program.

If there are no verbal contingencies for stuttered speech then not all components of Lidcombe Program are being implemented. There are cases though, such as with sensitive clients, where it might be appropriate only to provide verbal contingencies for stutter-free speech.

References
Harrison, E, Onslow, M & Menzies, R (2004) ‘Dismantling the Lidcombe Program of early stuttering intervention: verbal contingencies for stuttering and clinical measurement’ International Journal of Communication Disorders, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 257-267