Comments on Bothe, Davidow, Bramlett, Franic, and Ingham (2006).

PURPOSE: To critically assess the quality, methodology, and conclusions in A. K. Bothe, J. H. Davidow, R. E. Bramlett, D. M. Franic, and R. J. Ingham's (2006) systematic review of pharmacological approaches to stuttering. METHOD: A. D. Oxman and G. H. Guyatt's (1988) guidelines for reading literature reviews and A. D. Oxman and G. H. Guyatt's (1991) criteria for assessing the scientific quality of systematic reviews were adopted to accomplish the purpose. RESULTS: Bothe et al.'s review was rated on a 7-point scale from extensive flaws on the high end to minimal flaws on the low end of the scale. The ratings varied from poor to good. CONCLUSIONS: We judged Bothe et al.'s review of the pharmacological literature as it pertains to stuttering as flawed in its methodology and conclusions. However, we agree that the existing evidence for the use of pharmacological agents with persons who stutter is insufficient to recommend them in practice. Directions for improving the quality of clinical trials are suggested. In addition, we advocate for the multimethod measurement in stuttering research, including comparison, subjective evaluation, and social impact measures.

Effect-size reporting practices in AJSLP and other ASHA journals, 1999-2003.

A census of effect-size practices in the past 5 volumes of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association journals was accomplished. Inclusion of effect size in quantitative research reports increased from 5 reports with effect size in 1990 to 1994 to 120 reports in 1999 to 2003. Nonetheless, effect size was reported less than 30% of the time when inferential statistics were used, and only half of those reports included an interpretation of effect size. This article presents case exemplars to illustrate the use and value of effect size and includes suggestions for interpreting effect size. Researchers are encouraged to routinely report effect size and to interpret effect size in a way that facilitates the application of research to practice.

Evidence-Based Practice in Schools: Evaluating Research and Reducing Barriers.

This article examines the clinician/researcher relationship, suggests directions for improving the relationship, and discusses avenues for transferring information from research to clinical practice. An eight-step model for transferring research studies to practice is adopted, and three of the eight steps are targeted for discussion and illustration. To illustrate the use and interpretation of effect size measures for practical significance, as well as the transfer of research results to practice (evidence-based practice [EBP]), a case study from the contemporary literature is presented. Speech-language pathologists in schools and other work settings were surveyed to evaluate barriers to EBP. The survey suggested several possible barriers to EBP. For example, the speech-language pathologists surveyed agreed that there is not enough time on the job for research and other EBP activities. Collaborations between clinicians and researchers are recommended as a good avenue for applied research. The methods illustrated for critically evaluating research are useful for engaging EBPs. Further, clinicians in schools are encouraged to adopt EBPs with active involvement in research collaboration whenever possible.

Problems in synthesis (meta-analytic) studies: an example from the communication disorders literature.

This research note examined contemporary issues for meta-analysis with an example from the communication disorders literature. A significant proportion of experimental and quasi-experimental research results are not published in the mainstream literature, which suggests that publication bias is a potential problem for synthesis studies. Nonetheless, 50% of synthesis studies (meta-analyses) in communication disorders do not include statistical or visual procedures, e.g., fail-safe Ns or funnel plots, to reinforce the integrity of results. Tests for publication bias are recommended as routine procedures for meta-analyses.