Despite the frequency with which it occurs, the general public persists in holding misconceptions about brain injury. Greater public awareness is necessary to prompt appropriate health care funding and rehabilitative service decisions.

No abstract

The purpose of this survey was to obtain updated information on school-based speech-language pathologists’ training, confidence, attitudes, and perceptions associated with treating school-age children who stutter. A second goal was to investigate the impact of impending specialization training in fluency on service delivery to children who stutter. A total of 278 out of 500 (56%) randomly selected school clinicians certified by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) responded to the survey. The results showed a general improvement over previous reports in clinicians’ training, confidence, and attitudes concerning providing assessment and intervention services to school-age children who stutter. However, clinicians who received their degrees in the mid-to-late 1970s were less positive regarding their preparation to evaluate and treat preschool children who stutter than those clinicians who received their degrees within the last 10 years. The results also showed that respondents have fewer successes with adolescents who stutter than with any other student age group. Although a large majority of respondents would consult and request assistance from a "fluency specialist" if one were available, only 40% reported that specialists in fluency were needed in the schools. The results suggest that university training programs need to continue offering clinical experiences with school-age children who stutter and courses devoted exclusively to fluency disorders in order to develop clinicians who feel confident evaluating and treating fluency disorders.

Individual growth curve analyses showed participants made significant improvements in progressing through both interventions. However, limited generalization occurred: one participant demonstrated significantly improved performance on one of five probe measures and one other participant showed improved performance on some sub-tests of the Test of Everyday Attention; no other significant generalization results emerged. These findings call into question the assumption that intervention using either APT-3 or Lumosity™ will prompt generalization beyond the actual tasks performed during treatment.

No abstract