Obtaining consensus on core components of stuttering intervention for adults: An e‐Delphi Survey with key stakeholders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice involves the synthesis of multiple forms of evidence to inform clinical decision-making and treatment evaluation. Practice- and patient-based evidence are two forms of evidence that are under-represented in the stuttering literature. The collection of such knowledge is essential to support the design and delivery of effective stuttering interventions for adults. AIMS: To build stakeholder consensus on the core components of intervention for adults who stutter, and to establish a guiding framework for the design and development of evidence-based interventions for adults who stutter. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Adults who stutter and speech and language therapists (SLTs) with experience in providing stuttering intervention participated in the three-round e-Delphi Survey focused on: (1) identifying key stuttering intervention components, including principles, practices, and structural and contextual elements; and (2) obtaining group consensus on stuttering intervention components. Statements were categorized using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model adapted to the study of stuttering. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: A total of 48 individuals agreed to participate: 48/48 (100%) completed the Round 1 questionnaire, 40/48 (83%) responded to Round 2 and 36/40 (90%) participated in Round 3. Following content analysis of Round 1, 101 statements were developed, and consensus was achieved on 89 statements perceived as representing the core components of stuttering intervention for adults. Categorization of these statements reflected the key stuttering intervention components relating to personal reactions to stuttering, limitations in life participation and environmental factors. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Consensus on the core components of stuttering intervention was reached through engagement with key stakeholders. The evidence-based framework presented highlights the range of key intervention components a clinician should consider when designing interventions for adults who stutter. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Evidence-based practice endorses the synthesis of multiple knowledge forms including research, practice and patient evidence to support clinical decision-making and treatment evaluation. The stuttering literature is characterized by an over-representation of efficacy evidence, with significantly less practice and patient evidence to guide clinical practice. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study adds valuable practice- and patient-based evidence for effective stuttering intervention components for adults who stutter. These relate to personal reactions to stuttering, limitations in life participation and environmental factors. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This research presents a stakeholder-informed framework for stuttering intervention to guide SLTs working with adults who stutter in designing evidence-based interventions. The framework supports the adoption of a person-centred approach to intervention to ensure each client's unique needs, preferences, values and desired outcomes are explored and integrated into therapy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it