Teleparticipation in a Group Stuttering Treatment Program: Perspectives of Clients and Student Speech-Language Pathologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telepractice is now a common method for delivering stuttering treatment. To date reports of telepractice used in treating adults who stutter have focused on treatment provided to individuals (e.g., O’Brian et al., 2008; Carey et al., 2010) in individual treatment programs. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the experiences of adults who stutter and student speech-language pathologists who participated in a 3 week intensive stuttering treatment program in which one client participated through telepractice. This report focuses on the comparison of off-site to on-site experiences of all participants. Participants were Sarah who participated through telepractice in the acquisition phase of the Comprehensive Stuttering Program (CSP) program, her three fellow on-site adult clients (2 males and 1 female), and 2 student speech-language pathologists. In telepractice sessions, Jackie participated in group fluency skill practice sessions, group discussions that address the attitudinal and emotional consequences of stuttering, and less structured group conversations with fellow clients. Qualitative data were obtained from semi-structured interviews with clients and student trainees at the end of the treatment program. Jackie found the on-site delivered therapy superior to telepractice delivered therapy; however, she was surprised that the telepractice delivered therapy worked as well as it did. Fellow clients also thought that the in-person interaction was superior, but, in agreement with Jackie and student trainees, thought that telepractice therapy was “better than no therapy at all”. Based on challenges in the telepractice delivered treatment, all participants provided recommendations for future use of telepractice in a group therapy and clinical education programs. Themes will be detailed in the poster. Themes and recommendations provide new information about telepractice in group treatment programs from the perspective of clients and new information about clinical education in telepractice delivered stuttering treatment from the perspective of student trainees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".