[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Ed Feuer
Date: 08 Oct 2009
Time: 10:30:31 -0500
Remote Name: 142.161.186.109
Comments
How do the professors view assessment of outcomes by independent third parties? One poster ("A stutterer ... who continues to stutter ... ) on last year's ISAD conference on the Code of Silence thread at http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/cahn_mnsu_edu/11profin/_disc3/000000dc.htm went to the heart of the matter: "The failure in therapy for stuttering is never the fault of the therapy or the therapist ... It is always the fault of the client or parent." Many SLPs do in fact use this defence. But this highly unsatisfactory situation should not stand. The results of the work of any SLP who claims professional competence in treating stuttering should be assessed -- after the regulatory board sets out what should be assessed. And independent third party assessment (ITPA) is needed because the original practitioner has a vested interest in putting the best face on outcomes. As well, the Hawthorne effect can skew the data of that original practitioner interviewing the former client. That is why ITPA is vital. I would go further. In true evidence-based inquiry, assessors would also speak to the subject's family, friends and work associates regarding how he or she handles speech. This would necessitate the subject waiving privacy rights but accurate appraisal demands no less. And assessment one year, three years and five years after treatment is not unreasonable -- if the practitioners are willing to stand behind their work. The ITPA results would be made available to prospective consumers. As President Reagan said: "Trust but verify." But if practitioners feel their work cannot bear scrutiny, then maybe they should consider change ... — Ed Feuer, edfeuer@mts.net