Treatment for Stuttering in Preschool-Age Children: A Qualitative Document Analysis of Treatment Programs
Sjøstrand, Åse; Næss, Kari-Anne Bottegård; Melle, Ane Hestmann; Hoff, Karoline; Hansen, Elisabeth Holm; Guttormsen, Linn Stokke
Peer reviewed, Journal article
Published version

View/ Open
Date
2024Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Original version
Sjøstrand, Å., Næss, K.-A. B., Melle, A. H., Hoff, K., Hansen, E. H., & Guttormsen, L. S. (2024). Treatment for Stuttering in Preschool-Age Children: A Qualitative Document Analysis of Treatment Programs. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 67(4), 1020–1041. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00463Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify commonalities and differ- ences between content components in stuttering treatment programs for preschool-age children. Method: In this document analysis, a thematic analysis of the content was con- ducted of handbooks and manuals describing Early Childhood Stuttering Ther- apy, the Lidcombe Program, Mini-KIDS, Palin Parent–Child Interaction Therapy, RESTART Demands and Capacities Model Method, and the Westmead Pro- gram. First, a theoretical framework defining a content component in treatment was developed. Second, we coded and categorized the data following the pro- cedure of reflexive thematic analysis. In addition, the first authors of the treat- ment documents have reviewed the findings in this study, and their feedback has been analyzed and taken into consideration. Results: Sixty-one content components within the seven themes—interaction, coping, reactions, everyday life, information, language, and speech—were identi- fied across the treatment programs. The content component SLP providing information about the child’s stuttering was identified across all treatment pro- grams. All programs are multithematic, and no treatment program has a single focus on speech, language, or parent–child interaction. A comparison of the programs with equal treatment goals highlighted more commonalities in content components across the programs. The differences between the treatment pro- grams were evident in both the number of content components that varied from seven to 39 and the content included in each treatment program. Conclusions: Only one common content component was identified across pro- grams, and the number and types of components vary widely. The role that the common content component plays in treatment effects is discussed, alongside implications for research and clinical practice.