[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Tim Mackesey
Date: 12 Oct 2010
Time: 05:21:25 -0500
Remote Name: 72.145.144.244
Rosalee, Keep up the good work. I consider Lidcombe to designers to be stimulating much investigation into early stuttering treatment. The inclusion of parents and more direct treatment is thought provoking for clinicians new to this style of treatment. We all know the old "if you bring attention to it, it will get worse" whispers from the past. I have one procedural question. I was hoping you would clarify if Lidcombe is considered pure fluency shaping or if stuttering modification is incorporated? I interpret that fluency is rewarded and reinforced with a linguistic hierarchy and praise. In the first post you stated: "..spontaneous self monitoring or self correction of stutters is not one of the objectives with this age group. I might use a reward program for a preschool age child that reinforces fluency, perhaps as a motivator toward the end of treatment, but never for monitoring stuttering. In the case of the older child, this boy was very good at self monitoring and self correcting and I used the reward system to reinforce what he was already doing in order to encourage him. " In-block correction aka "pull-outs" counter condition the behavior as it occurs and lead to faster extinction of stuttering. I routinely see children as young as three learn to stop their own stutters (perform a pull-out). What is the belief about teaching spontaneous self-correction, and rewarding a child to independently stop his stuttering, in the Lidcombe camp?