Behavioral Self‐control of Stuttering Using Time‐out From Speaking

Abstract

Research has shown that stuttering may be attenuated by a variety of response-contingent consequences. To date, however, few attempts have been made to develop comprehensive clinical procedures based on the operant manipulation of stuttering. The present research examined the efficacy of self-initiated response-contingent time-out from speaking in two exeperiments involving a single subject. Multiple baseline designs were used in which the subject's speech was monitored in a variety of laboratory and community settings. In Experiment 1, the time-out procedure produced reliable reductions in disfluency across all observational settings. Experiment 2 combined a response-cost contingency with time-out in an attempt to increase the reliability with which the subject timed himself out, and to increase further the effectiveness of the procedure. Increases in reliability were produced, and the associated improvements in fluency were maintained at 6-and 12-months' follow-up.

Self-management and achievement of students with behavior disorders

“…Findings from this study show that, after training, the application of general selfmanagement strategies increased the math scores of the 18 participants. The findings also corroborate the results of existing research (Axelrod et al, 1972; Hughes et al, 1988;James, 1981; Mastellone, 1974;Shapiro, 1989). Similar to each of these studies, application of self-management strategies after training improved each student's performance.…”

Investigating factors related to the effects of time‐out on stuttering in adults

“…Many researchers have investigated the influence of modifying parts of the procedure of time‐out on stuttering reduction. Impact of accuracy of time‐out delivery was not found to be a crucial factor in the successful reduction of stuttering (Adams and Popelka 1971, James 1976, 1981a,b, 1983, Martin and Haroldson 1982, James et al 1989). James et al (1989) found that even when only 33% of stuttering moments were interrupted, treatment resulted in significant reductions.…”

“…Likewise, Martin and Haroldson (1982) agreed 96% of the time with one of their participants who established a 32% reduction in stuttering; and only 45% of another participant who achieved a 93% reduction. In an even earlier study by James (1981a), the participant only delivered time‐out on 46% stutters, then following training of stuttering identification using response‐cost methodology, improved to 63%. However, in both experiments, the percentage of stutters significantly reduced.…”

“…Specifically, one participant's repetitions were targeted and their blocks and inhalation interjections decreased, another participant's jaw tremors were targeted and reduced along with their repetitions, and for the third participant, repetitions, prolongations and blocks decreased when only prolongations were the target. Likewise, the procedure is effective regardless of whether the experimenter or the participant administers the time‐out (James 1981a, 1983, Hewat et al 2001).…”

Changes in linguistic variables during operant, laboratory control of stuttering in children

“…Ingham's (1984) review of operant methods with stuttering showed this optimism to be justi® ed. At that time, Ingham noted the existence of six studies which had admissible methodological credentials and which showed signi® cant and durable stuttering reductions in response to operant methods (Ingham and Packman, 1977;James, 1981;Martin, Kuhl and Haroldson, 1972;Peters, 1977;Ryan, 1974 ). Ingham noted the particular potential of operant treatments for children and, since that time, that potential has been realized to some extent with the development of the Lidcombe Programme of early stuttering intervention, which is based on operant methods (for reviews see Harrison and Onslow, 1999;Onslow and Packman, 1999).…”