[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Tom Weidig (thestutteringbrain.blogspot.com)
Date: 21 Oct 2008
Time: 08:44:38 -0500
Remote Name: 88.207.185.7
The trials do not test Lidcombe specific components of early intervention, because it is not a blind random control trial. And at the same time, others find it difficult to finance and implement such trials. So we might well have the situation where most early interventions are similar in effect (either an effect, or no LONG TERM and we are fooled by natural recovery), but as Susan claims "should be the treatment of the choice" just because it was the one that was tested. And again the whole package was tested and not Lidcombe specific components! (see my reply to Ann) Moreover, there are many many methodological and implementation flaws (see my reply to Ann's reply). It is just not good enough long-term evidence to single out Lidcombe at all. Regarding the Francken study, as far as I know they did what they were taught about Lidcombe at the time. Then the treatment was changed. You can hardly blame them for this. In any case, it was a pilot trial with short observation but a sample of 30, and it did not reveal major differences. So the old form of Lidcombe can hardly be sensationally better considering they had 30 kids which is not great but better than nothing. They have a current trial for which more than 50 kids have already been enrolled (as far as I heard) and they aim for 100 or so, and they claim that they will be extra careful to use the official Lidcombe treatment taught by a certified teacher. I guess to make sure that no-one of you can say: "Oh it is not really Lidcombe, so it doesnt count!" ;-)