PURPOSE: The Lidcombe Program is a behavioural treatment for stuttering in children younger than 6 years that is supported by evidence of efficacy and effectiveness. The treatment incorporates parent verbal contingencies for stutter-free speech and for stuttering. However, the contribution of those contingencies to reductions in stuttering in the program is unclear. METHOD: Thirty-four parent-child dyads were randomized to two treatment groups. The control group received standard Lidcombe Program and the experimental group received Lidcombe Program without instruction to parents to use the verbal contingency request for self-correction. Treatment responsiveness was measured as time to 50% stuttering severity reduction. RESULT: No differences were found between groups on primary outcome measures of the number of weeks and clinic visits to 50% reduction in stuttering severity. CONCLUSION: This clinical experiment challenges the assumption that the verbal contingency request for self-correction contributes to treatment efficacy. Results suggest the need for further research to explore this issue.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The Lidcombe Program is a behavioural treatment for stuttering in children younger than 6 years that is supported by evidence of efficacy and effectiveness. The treatment incorporates parent verbal contingencies for stutter-free speech and for stuttering. However, the contribution of those contingencies to reductions in stuttering in the program is unclear. METHOD: Thirty-four parent-child dyads were randomized to two treatment groups. The control group received standard Lidcombe Program and the experimental group received Lidcombe Program without instruction to parents to use the verbal contingency request for self-correction. Treatment responsiveness was measured as time to 50% stuttering severity reduction. RESULT: No differences were found between groups on primary outcome measures of the number of weeks and clinic visits to 50% reduction in stuttering severity. CONCLUSION: This clinical experiment challenges the assumption that the verbal contingency request for self-correction contributes to treatment efficacy. Results suggest the need for further research to explore this issue.