Speech Impediments

The first time I realized I was different was in second grade, when I opened my mouth to answer a question and my peers giggled as I struggled to answer. I pronounced my R's like W's, which threw my whole pronunciation of the English language into a twist. My previously "adorable" lapses in speech were now affecting me negatively. I was different than the rest of my classmates; I had been born with a speech disorder.

The ten participates that were target as stutters were divided into groups. Five were group IA the experimental set and group IB were the control set. Group IA was told that there speech was fine and they had no problem. The other group IB was told your “''Yes, your speech is as bad as people say.'' The remaining twelve were ages 5-15 and was chosen randomly and they were separate into two groups of six. Group IIA were told that they were showing signs of stuttering and they must correct themselves immediately. In Group IIB, this was the control group and they were told that their speech was normal and was praised for their enunciation. The subjects in Group IIA sought a lawsuit against the University of Iowa because of their psychology harmed they received from this study.

The study was experimental because: 1) the researchers did manipulate the independent variables, and 2) Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups.

Outcomes of taught target sounds can generalize to other sounds and contexts if the clinician provides the client with adequate training and opportunities, compared to assuming that acquisition in one setting will automatically generalize (McReynolds, 1989). Clinicians must plan for generalization before the start of treatment (Kearns, 1989). Factors for generalization can include: treatment approach and target phonemes. In order for the client to generalize the treatment, therefore showing true success, the client needs an effective treatment approach. Although not one

Under the research design section it could have been mentioned that the study was a descriptive correlation design, experimental design, Quasi-experimental design, or a comparative descriptive design which is "used to describe a phenomenon of interest and related variable" (Gray, Grove, & Sutherland,

May have difficulty eating and swallowing. Problems when talking and speech. Weight gain and weight loss. (Nhs.uk, 2016h)May have difficulty eating and swallowing. Problems when talking and speech. Weight gain and weight loss. (Nhs.uk, 2016h)May have difficulty eating and swallowing. Problems when talking and speech. Weight gain and weight loss. (Nhs.uk, 2016h)May have difficulty eating and swallowing. Problems when talking and speech. Weight gain and weight loss. (Nhs.uk, 2016h)May have difficulty eating and swallowing. Problems when talking and speech. Weight gain and weight loss. (Nhs.uk,

The study conducted was an experimental study. In this study, an independent variable was manipulated and a dependent variable was measured making it an experiment. A correlational study is where you compare the connection between to variables which did not take place in this study. One group was given the drug and the other was given the placebo. Researchers took note of how the patients given the drug reacted. A hypothesis is a testable prediction of what can happen under specific circumstances. In this study, the hypothesis was: If a group with a stuttering problem is given a certain drug that stimulates parts in the frontal lobe, then the people in the group will experience the ability to speak better. The independent variable in the study

As a Speech Language Pathologist it is my responsibility to provide a means of communication to any individual who has an impairment as it relates to communication. No matter how severe the deficit may be as it relates to cognitive functioning, motor skills,etc.. and any other disability that may impact the traditional means of communication. A Speech language Pathologist who works with individuals who require the use of an Augmentative and alternative communication device, must keep in mind that it is their responsibility to make sure that more than one mode of alternative and or augmentative can be used, monitor the progression of intervention as well as evaluate the individual and most importantly keep up to date with current practice through

There is a sufficient amount of evidence to replicate this study, yet the environment was not discussed and could alter results. This means that if the study were done in an uncomfortable environment, or since the subjects are being watched, it could be skewed, and they did not explain this in enough detail.

Another way to improve speech would be to practice slowing down the rate of speech as well as improving breathing while speaking. The therapist may continuously ask the patient to pause for breath, to over-articulate, or to pause before important words to make them stand out.

This is an experimental study because it involves the manipulation of the variables at various degrees and seeing the effects of such a manipulation.

For more minor cases of public speaking anxiety, preparation and practice are common methods of overcoming the problem. Just like many tasks, the more able a person feels about completing the task, the less anxiety they experience. This sense of being ready and able to complete a task is achieved by being prepared. Practice is also important, since this makes the individual

In 1939 an experiment now known as the “Monster Study” was conducted on 22 orphaned children by Wendell Johnson, a very influential speech pathologist at the University of Iowa. In this experiment the orphaned children were divided up into two separate groups. One group was given positive speech therapy, in which they were praised for their fluency. The other group was given negative speech therapy. They were belittled for every speech imperfection and told that they were stutterers. Many of the normal speaking children who were subjected to the negative speech therapy experienced negative psychological effects and some developed lasting speech impediments.

Clinical Implications: Minimal-contrast treatment is effective and efficient for treating children with phonological disability. Avoiding listener confusion is motivating for suppressing process use.

Many speech language pathologists (SLPs), after diagnosing a child with stuttering are left with the problems of what treatment program should be implemented and what are the chances that the