American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.14 172-186 August 2005. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2005/018)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Finn, P.
Right arrow Articles by Bramlett, R. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Finn, P.
Right arrow Articles by Bramlett, R. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Science and Pseudoscience in Communication Disorders

Criteria and Applications

Patrick Finn 1
Anne K. Bothe 2

Robin E. Bramlett 2
1 University of Arizona, Tucson
2 University of Georgia, Athens

pfinn{at}email.arizona.edu

Purpose: The purpose of this tutorial is to describe 10 criteria that may help clinicians distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific treatment claims. The criteria are illustrated, first for considering whether to use a newly developed treatment and second for attempting to understand arguments about controversial treatments.

Method: Pseudoscience refers to claims that appear to be based on the scientific method but are not. Ten criteria for distinguishing between scientific and pseudoscientific treatment claims are described. These criteria are illustrated by using them to assess a current treatment for stuttering, the SpeechEasy device. The authors read the available literature about the device and developed a consensus set of decisions about the 10 criteria. To minimize any bias, a second set of independent judges evaluated a sample of the same literature. The criteria are also illustrated by using them to assess controversies surrounding 2 treatment approaches: Fast ForWord and facilitated communication.

Conclusions: Clinicians are increasingly being held responsible for the evidence base that supports their practice. The power of these 10 criteria lies in their ability to help clinicians focus their attention on the credibility of that base and to guide their decisions for recommending or using a treatment.

Key Words: science, pseudoscience, evidence-based practice, stuttering

Submitted on March 17, 2005
Accepted on May 23, 2005


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 LSHSSHome page
D. Paul and F. P. Roth
Guiding Principles and Clinical Applications for Speech-Language Pathology Practice in Early Intervention
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, July 1, 2011; 42(3): 320 - 330.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JSLHRHome page
M. Lincoln, A. Packman, M. Onslow, and M. Jones
An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Altered Auditory Feedback on the Conversational Speech of Adults Who Stutter
J Speech Lang Hear Res, October 1, 2010; 53(5): 1122 - 1131.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 LSHSSHome page
M. M. Watson and G. L. Lof
A Survey of University Professors Teaching Speech Sound Disorders: Nonspeech Oral Motor Exercises and Other Topics
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, July 1, 2009; 40(3): 256 - 270.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JSLHRHome page
R. Pollard, J. B. Ellis, D. Finan, and P. R. Ramig
Effects of the SpeechEasy on Objective and Perceived Aspects of Stuttering: A 6-Month, Phase I Clinical Trial in Naturalistic Environments
J Speech Lang Hear Res, April 1, 2009; 52(2): 516 - 533.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 LSHSSHome page
T. W. Powell
The Use of Nonspeech Oral Motor Treatments for Developmental Speech Sound Production Disorders: Interventions and Interactions
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, July 1, 2008; 39(3): 374 - 379.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 LSHSSHome page
D. M. Ruscello
Nonspeech Oral Motor Treatment Issues Related to Children With Developmental Speech Sound Disorders
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, July 1, 2008; 39(3): 380 - 391.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 LSHSSHome page
G. L. Lof and M. M. Watson
A Nationwide Survey of Nonspeech Oral Motor Exercise Use: Implications for Evidence-Based Practice
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, July 1, 2008; 39(3): 392 - 407.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 LSHSSHome page
N. J. Lass and M. Pannbacker
The Application of Evidence-Based Practice to Nonspeech Oral Motor Treatments
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, July 1, 2008; 39(3): 408 - 421.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJSLPHome page
J. Kalinowski, T. Saltuklaroglu, A. Stuart, and V. K. Guntupalli
On the Importance of Scientific Rhetoric in Stuttering: A Reply to Finn, Bothe, and Bramlett (2005)
Am J Speech Lang Pathol, February 1, 2007; 16(1): 69 - 76.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJSLPHome page
A. K. Bothe, P. Finn, and R. E. Bramlett
Pseudoscience and the SpeechEasy: Reply to Kalinowski, Saltuklaroglu, Stuart, and Guntupalli (2007)
Am J Speech Lang Pathol, February 1, 2007; 16(1): 77 - 83.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]