Abstract
Ingham's (1983) critique of our research is based on the unwarranted assumption that it claimed to be a replication of Ingham and Andrews' (1973a) study. Our report did not claim to be a replication. Procedural differences between treatments do not preclude the possibility of drawing general conclusions that may apply to related treatments, or suggesting possible confounding variables that might be operating in another study. We have nevertheless dealt with each of Ingham's methodological objections. In general, we believe that we struck an acceptable compromise between the needs of clients and theoretical and research demands. We stand by our original conclusions, and note with satisfaction that Ingham concurs with our emphasis on systematic structure rather than the presence or absence of rewards as the crucial component of this type of stuttering treatment.
Keywords: stuttering, token economies, tangible reinforcers, fluency shaping, structured programming, monetary reinforcement
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Howie P. M., Tanner S., Andrews G. Short- and long-term outcome in an intensive treatment program for adult stutterers. J Speech Hear Disord. 1981 Feb;46(1):104–109. doi: 10.1044/jshd.4601.104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Howie P. M., Woods C. L. Token reinforcement during the instatement and shaping of fluency in the treatment of stuttering. J Appl Behav Anal. 1982 Spring;15(1):55–64. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1982.15-55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ingham R. J. On token reinforcement and stuttering therapy: another view on findings reported by Howie and Woods (1982). J Appl Behav Anal. 1983 Winter;16(4):465–475. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1983.16-465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]