32 / 64
86
JCPSLP
Volume 19, Number 2 2017
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
that it is perceived as “doable” by those clinicians who have
engaged in this vanguard practice change.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this research was provided by the NSW Health
Education and Training Institute as part of the Rural
Research Capacity Building Program. While this funding
provided education and support for the researcher, the
funding agency had no influence on the conduct or
reporting of the study.
References
Arnott, S., Onslow, M., O’Brian, S., Packman, A., Jones,
M., & Block, S. (2014). Group Lidcombe Program treatment
for early stuttering: A randomized controlled trial.
Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
,
57
(5), 1606–
1618.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis
in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology
,
3
(2),
77–101.
de Sonneville-Koedoot, C., Adams, S. A., Stolk, E. A., &
Franken, M.-C. (2015). Perspectives of clinicians involved in
the RESTART-study: Outcomes of a focus group.
American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
,
24
(November),
708–716.
de Sonneville-Koedoot, C., Stolk, E., Rietveld, T., &
Franken, M.-C. (2015). Direct versus indirect treatment for
preschool children who stutter: The RESTART randomised
trial.
PLoS ONE
,
10
(7), 1–17.
Finch, E., Cornwell, P., Nalder, E., & Ward, E. (2015).
Uncovering motivators and stumbling blocks:Exploring
the clinical research experiences of speech-language
pathologists.
International Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology
,
17
(2), 138–147.
Franken, M.-C. J., Kielstra-Van der Schalk, C. J.,
& Boelens, H. (2005). Experimental treatment of early
stuttering: A preliminary study.
Journal of Fluency Disorders
,
30
(3), 189–199.
Guitar, B., Kazenski, D., Howardd, A., Cousins, S. F.,
Fader, E., & Haskell, P. (2015). Predicting treatment time
and long-term outcome of the Lidcombe Program: A
replication and reanalysis.
American Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology
,
24
(August), 533–544.
Johnson, M., Baxter, S., Blank, L., Cantrell, A., Brumfitt,
S., Enderby, P., & Goyer, E. (2016). The state of the art
in non-pharmacological interventions for developmental
stuttering. Part 2: Qualitative evidence synthesis of view
and experiences.
International Journal of Language &
Communication Disorders
,
51
(1), 3–17.
Jones, M., Onslow, M., Packman, A., Williams, S.,
Ormond, T., Schwarz, I., & Gebski, V. (2005). Randomised
controlled trial of the Lidcombe Programme of early
stuttering intervention.
British Medical Journal
,
331
(7518),
659–663.
McCulloch, J., Swift, M. C., & Wagnitz, B. (2017). Case
file audit of Lidcombe Program outcomes in a student-led
stuttering clinic.
International Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology
, 1–9.
Miller, B., & Guitar, B. (2009). Long-term outcome of the
Lidcombe Program for early stuttering intervention.
American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
,
18
(1), 42–49.
O’Brian, S., Iverach, L., Jones, M., Onslow, M.,
Packman, A., & Menzies, R. (2013). Effectiveness of
the Lidcombe Program for early stuttering in Australian
community clinics.
International Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology
,
15
(6), 593–603.
there is usually a child to treat, even when others have
failed to attend without notice.
Interestingly, one route towards embedding practice
change appears to be SLP involvement in clinic-based,
practitioner-led research. The authors of a Dutch study (de
Sonneville-Koedoot, Adams, et al., 2015) reported that by
participating in the trial, the SLPs have not only been able
to alter their preconceived attitudes and beliefs regarding
therapies but have been more inclined to incorporate the
study outcomes into their current practice. Similarly in
this study, several SLPs reflected that engagement in the
research process had resulted in capacity building for the
rolling-group methodology, which has been further borne
out by sustained practice and policy change within the
community health centres.
Participants’ perceptions point to clear avenues for
future support. Provision of bricks and mortar, or in this
case rooms and toys, can offer only a limited starting point
if LP rolling-groups are to be widely established. Service
managers may need to proactively free up a portion of
face-to-face clinical time for training, ongoing mentoring
and supervision, based on an understanding that there
is evidence for the cost-efficiency of the LP rolling-group
model through the reduction in clinical hours per child
(Arnott et al., 2014; Rappell et al., 2017). Such “coaching”
support may help bridge the evidence–practice gap and
foster consistency in clinical practice (de Sonneville-
Koedoot, Adams, et al., 2015).
Lastly but by no means least, participants endorsed
the rolling-groups for advantages that were not directly
measured. Participating SLPs described more real-world
or functional communication between children and a
sense that each child was less in the spotlight or under
less focus during stuttering severity rating discussions or
when parents were demonstrating treatment due to the
group format. Responses from the participating clinicians
concurred with Arnott et al. (2014) in acknowledging that
the rolling-groups created an environment where roles were
shared between the SLP and parents whereby problem-
solving or sharing ideas was multidirectional, not solely
from SLP to parent. Finally, participating SLPs reflected on
the likelihood of intrinsic social support benefits within the
LP rolling-groups as children and parents alike were often
meeting another person who stuttered and a family also
embarking on their treatment journey for the first time and
sharing their experiences.
Conclusion
This study aimed to advance the speech-language
pathology profession’s understanding of the views of
practitioners delivering interventions for stuttering and the
acceptability of the treatment process. Most specifically it
reports on the perceptions of community-based SLPs
pertaining to the value and sustainability of a new rolling-
group delivery model for the Lidcombe Program for young
children who stutter. Qualitative analysis determined that
while the LP rolling-group model may be complex and offer
challenges, it is perceived by the participating SLPs to be
viable in real-world clinical practice. Furthermore, clinicians
were optimistic about LP rolling-group establishment within
their standard service delivery, making recommendations
for operational support such as ongoing coaching or
supervision to embed practice change. These results move
the speech-language pathology profession beyond the
proposition that a LP rolling-group model may work within
real-world settings, to evidence that it does and, crucially,