On the importance of scientific rhetoric in stuttering

A reply to Finn, Bothe, and Bramlett (2005)

Joseph Kalinowski, Tim Saltuklaroglu, Andrew Stuart, Vijaya K. Guntupalli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To refute the alleged practice of "pseudoscience" by P. Finn, A. K. Bothe, and R. E. Bramlett (2005) and to illustrate their experimental and systematic bias when evaluating the SpeechEasy, an altered auditory feedback device used in the management of stuttering. Method: We challenged the experimental design that led to the seemingly predetermined outcome of pseudoscience rather than science: Limited preselected literature was submitted to a purposely sampled panel of judges (i.e., their own students). Each criterion deemed pseudoscientific was contested with published peer-reviewed data illustrating the importance of good rhetoric, testability, and logical outcomes from decades of scientific research. Conclusions: Stuttering is an involuntary disorder that is highly resistant to therapy. Altered auditory feedback is a derivation of choral speech (nature's most powerful stuttering "inhibitor") that can be synergistically combined with other methods for optimal stuttering inhibition. This approach is logical considering that in stuttering no single treatment is universally helpful. Also, caution is suggested when attempting to differentiate science from pseudoscience in stuttering treatments using the criteria employed by Finn et al. For example, evaluating behavioral therapy outcomes implements a post hoc or untestable system. Speech outcome (i.e., stuttered or fluent speech) determines success or failure of technique use, placing responsibility for failure on those who stutter.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)69-76
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2007

Fingerprint

Stuttering
Fin
rhetoric
science
responsibility
Therapeutics
trend
management
Research Design
student
Students
Equipment and Supplies
Research

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

On the importance of scientific rhetoric in stuttering : A reply to Finn, Bothe, and Bramlett (2005). / Kalinowski, Joseph; Saltuklaroglu, Tim; Stuart, Andrew; Guntupalli, Vijaya K.

In: American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 01.01.2007, p. 69-76.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{19e85c6a5ce04ca3acfd52110c5316aa,
title = "On the importance of scientific rhetoric in stuttering: A reply to Finn, Bothe, and Bramlett (2005)",
abstract = "Purpose: To refute the alleged practice of {"}pseudoscience{"} by P. Finn, A. K. Bothe, and R. E. Bramlett (2005) and to illustrate their experimental and systematic bias when evaluating the SpeechEasy, an altered auditory feedback device used in the management of stuttering. Method: We challenged the experimental design that led to the seemingly predetermined outcome of pseudoscience rather than science: Limited preselected literature was submitted to a purposely sampled panel of judges (i.e., their own students). Each criterion deemed pseudoscientific was contested with published peer-reviewed data illustrating the importance of good rhetoric, testability, and logical outcomes from decades of scientific research. Conclusions: Stuttering is an involuntary disorder that is highly resistant to therapy. Altered auditory feedback is a derivation of choral speech (nature's most powerful stuttering {"}inhibitor{"}) that can be synergistically combined with other methods for optimal stuttering inhibition. This approach is logical considering that in stuttering no single treatment is universally helpful. Also, caution is suggested when attempting to differentiate science from pseudoscience in stuttering treatments using the criteria employed by Finn et al. For example, evaluating behavioral therapy outcomes implements a post hoc or untestable system. Speech outcome (i.e., stuttered or fluent speech) determines success or failure of technique use, placing responsibility for failure on those who stutter.",
author = "Joseph Kalinowski and Tim Saltuklaroglu and Andrew Stuart and Guntupalli, {Vijaya K.}",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1044/1058-0360(2007/009)",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "69--76",
journal = "American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology",
issn = "1058-0360",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the importance of scientific rhetoric in stuttering

T2 - A reply to Finn, Bothe, and Bramlett (2005)

AU - Kalinowski, Joseph

AU - Saltuklaroglu, Tim

AU - Stuart, Andrew

AU - Guntupalli, Vijaya K.

PY - 2007/1/1

Y1 - 2007/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To refute the alleged practice of "pseudoscience" by P. Finn, A. K. Bothe, and R. E. Bramlett (2005) and to illustrate their experimental and systematic bias when evaluating the SpeechEasy, an altered auditory feedback device used in the management of stuttering. Method: We challenged the experimental design that led to the seemingly predetermined outcome of pseudoscience rather than science: Limited preselected literature was submitted to a purposely sampled panel of judges (i.e., their own students). Each criterion deemed pseudoscientific was contested with published peer-reviewed data illustrating the importance of good rhetoric, testability, and logical outcomes from decades of scientific research. Conclusions: Stuttering is an involuntary disorder that is highly resistant to therapy. Altered auditory feedback is a derivation of choral speech (nature's most powerful stuttering "inhibitor") that can be synergistically combined with other methods for optimal stuttering inhibition. This approach is logical considering that in stuttering no single treatment is universally helpful. Also, caution is suggested when attempting to differentiate science from pseudoscience in stuttering treatments using the criteria employed by Finn et al. For example, evaluating behavioral therapy outcomes implements a post hoc or untestable system. Speech outcome (i.e., stuttered or fluent speech) determines success or failure of technique use, placing responsibility for failure on those who stutter.

AB - Purpose: To refute the alleged practice of "pseudoscience" by P. Finn, A. K. Bothe, and R. E. Bramlett (2005) and to illustrate their experimental and systematic bias when evaluating the SpeechEasy, an altered auditory feedback device used in the management of stuttering. Method: We challenged the experimental design that led to the seemingly predetermined outcome of pseudoscience rather than science: Limited preselected literature was submitted to a purposely sampled panel of judges (i.e., their own students). Each criterion deemed pseudoscientific was contested with published peer-reviewed data illustrating the importance of good rhetoric, testability, and logical outcomes from decades of scientific research. Conclusions: Stuttering is an involuntary disorder that is highly resistant to therapy. Altered auditory feedback is a derivation of choral speech (nature's most powerful stuttering "inhibitor") that can be synergistically combined with other methods for optimal stuttering inhibition. This approach is logical considering that in stuttering no single treatment is universally helpful. Also, caution is suggested when attempting to differentiate science from pseudoscience in stuttering treatments using the criteria employed by Finn et al. For example, evaluating behavioral therapy outcomes implements a post hoc or untestable system. Speech outcome (i.e., stuttered or fluent speech) determines success or failure of technique use, placing responsibility for failure on those who stutter.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34247282048&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34247282048&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1044/1058-0360(2007/009)

DO - 10.1044/1058-0360(2007/009)

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 69

EP - 76

JO - American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

JF - American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

SN - 1058-0360

IS - 1

ER -