McGuire Programme was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 February 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Stuttering therapy. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Stuttering therapy was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 11, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 1, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although some believe that there is no cure for stuttering, others say that it can be eliminated with stuttering therapy at early age?

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Stuttering#Secondary behaviors|secondary behaviors]] The anchor (#Secondary behaviors) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

August 2008

Sources for future edits: [www.mnsu.edu/comdis/kuster/journal/osborne/cvr.pp] -Samuel Tan 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quickfail GA

This article has a clean-up tag and may therefor be quick-failed as a Good Article Nominee. I suggest you address the issues post-haste so that the candidacy remain viable. the skomorokh 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stuttering therapy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I will be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

As the user above pointed out, the cleanup banner qualifies this article for quickfail. However, I'm in a good mood today, so I'll give you a chance to fix the problem in the " on hold" period. :)
"and these have been successful to varying degrees" - grammar - these what?
In Goals, you talk about what "others" believe. Are these individuals qualified clinicians or psychologists or some hacks on the street?
In the summary of the acronym MIDVAS, the numbering isn't needed.
Refs 25 and 26 are the same, so they can be combined.

That's it for now. The article will remain on hold for seven days for improvements. Nikki311 00:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this is considered a serious psychology article (rather than pop psychology), please consider evaluating the reference sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The seven days are up, and I am failing the article due to lack of progress. Please consider addressing these concerns before renomination. Thanks. Nikki311 15:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs major work

This article has some good stuff but it needs major work. In recent years there have been three literature reviews, four systematic reviews, and one meta-analysis, covering more than 200 studies, published in recent years in the speech-language pathology journals. These reviews constitute Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in the field of stuttering. This article has little or no EBP. It mostly has some quotes from a few "experts" in the field and the rest is from a article in "Family Physician" magazine, which isn't a journal of speech-language pathology.

I put together the EBP reviews as a short, easy-to-read e-book and I put the GNU General Public License "copyleft" on it so y'all are free to use it on Wikipedia. You can download my e-book free from [1]. If no one works on this article I'll try to do something when have time.--TDKehoe (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The e-book you mention above isn't a reliable source as it is self-published and cannot be used for anything. I've taken a look at the proposed article that you have posted here [2]. I strongly disagree its inclusion here or even merging any of its content without very careful consideration. Among the problems are the use of some very ancient sources, misrepresentation and reinterpretation of original data contrary to no original research, and a return to the pat promotion of altered auditory feedback approaches, for which Tdkehoe has an admitted COI, and which actually seem to be an ineffective stuttering treatment - the research used to support it described as pseudoscience in a peer-reviewed journal.[[3]][[4]]. See WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDHOW If Tdkehoe can link to the three recent literature reviews, four systematic reviews, and one meta-analysis that he mentions that would be very helpful. Contributing only to the talkpage and making suggestions here is likely the best way to deal with this situation. --Slp1 (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to Pharmacological section

Hello,

I found a meta analysis that looked at pharmacological treatments for childhood-onset fluency disorder and found that none of the medications were proven effective. The information present in this section already suggests this, but this could provide another resource- which is also a meta-analysis. Here is a short paragraph I wrote about some of the findings.

Numerous associations between pathways of stuttering development and other types of disorders have been made. Because of these associations researchers have hypothesized that a variety of pharmacological treatments should ameliorate problems with stuttering. Anticonvulsant agents used to treat epilepsy have been tested on those who stutter, but showed no significant results. Antidepressants, both selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic, have shown no effect on stuttering symptoms; nor have antipsychotic agents used to treat bipolar and schizophrenia. It is important that these studies have found negative results because the implications of taking these medications can be very severe.^[1]

(Ehealy92 (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

References=

^ Bothe, Anne K.; Davidow, Jason H.; Bramlett, Robin E.; Franic, Duska M.; Ingham, Roger J. (1 November 2006). "Stuttering Treatment Research 1970–2005: II. Systematic Review Incorporating Trial Quality Assessment of Pharmacological Approaches". American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 15 (4): 342. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2006/032).

[1] Bothe, Anne K.; Davidow, Jason H.; Bramlett, Robin E.; Franic, Duska M.; Ingham, Roger J. (1 November 2006). "Stuttering Treatment Research 1970–2005: II. Systematic Review Incorporating Trial Quality Assessment of Pharmacological Approaches". American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 15 (4): 342. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2006/032).

[1]