Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 171

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Controlled Clinical Trial for Stuttering in Persons Aged 9 to 14 Years

Craig, Ashley, Hancock, Karen, Chang, Esther, McCready, Chris, Shepley, Alison, McCaul, Annette, Costello, Deborah, Harding, Shanne, Kehren, Roberta, Masel, Catherine, Reilly, Karen·1996·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a controlled trial of child stuttering treatment. The aim of the study was, first, to compare the effectiveness of three viable treatments, and, second, to compare these three treatments to a no-treatment control composed of children who stuttered of a similar age and sex ratio who were on treatment waiting lists. The three treatments investigated included intensive smooth speech, intensive electromyography feedback, and home-based smooth speech. The children/adolescents were assessed across three speaking contexts on measures of percentage syllables stuttered (%SS) and syllables spoken per minute (SPM) and outcomes were assessed 12 months later. Repeated measures analyses of variance demonstrated significant differences between the control group and all three treatment groups across time on conversations in the clinic, on the telephone, and at home (although home measures were not taken for the intensive smooth speech group). Although the controls' stuttering did not change across time, the treatment groups' stuttering was decreased to very low levels posttreatment (less than 1% syllables stuttered on average), with mean improvement in stuttering frequency of at least 85% to 90% across all assessment contexts. Stuttering did not increase significantly up to 3 months and one year posttreatment in the experimental groups, although levels did rise across time (less than 3% syllables stuttered on average). Speech naturalness results showed increasing naturalness across time as rated by the clinician and parent. This was not the case for the controls. The children were also less anxious across time following treatment. The results suggest that all three treatments for children aged 9–14 who stutter were very successful in the long term for over 70% of the group, though the EMG feedback and home-based treatments were superior when percentages falling below a cutoff point (2%SS) were used to discriminate between groups. Implications for child/adolescent treatment in the community are discussed. Long-term outcomes will be assessed up to 5 years after the treatment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/jshr.3904.808

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 171

Metadata

Authors
Craig, A., Hancock, K., Chang, E., McCready, C., Shepley, A., McCaul, A., Costello, D., Harding, S., Kehren, R., Masel, C., & Reilly, K.
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Published
1996-08
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
808-826
ISSN
  • 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9102
OpenAlex
W2137052092
Cited by
171
References
1
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Controlled Clinical Trial for Stuttering in Persons Aged 9 to 14 Years. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1044/jshr.3904.808
The paper
Craig, A., Hancock, K., Chang, E., McCready, C., Shepley, A., McCaul, A., Costello, D., Harding, S., Kehren, R., Masel, C., & Reilly, K. (1996). A Controlled Clinical Trial for Stuttering in Persons Aged 9 to 14 Years. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3904.808

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.