Differing Perspectives on What to Do With a Stuttering Preschooler and Why Purpose In order to produce a compact and readable review of clinical issues for clinicians, the authors developed a “1,000-bites” format in which they discuss a topic initiated by one of the authors. Method The format is designed to give the reader the feeling of contemporaneous observation of ... Second Opinion
Second Opinion  |   February 01, 2007
Differing Perspectives on What to Do With a Stuttering Preschooler and Why
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Mark Onslow
    Australian Stuttering Research Centre, The University of Sydney
  • J. Scott Yaruss
    Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh and University of Pittsburgh, PA
  • Contact author: Mark Onslow, Australian Stuttering Research Centre, The University of Sydney, East Street, Lidcombe, New South Wales 2141, Australia. E-mail: m.onslow@fhs.usyd.edu.au.
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Second Opinion
Second Opinion   |   February 01, 2007
Differing Perspectives on What to Do With a Stuttering Preschooler and Why
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, February 2007, Vol. 16, 65-68. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2007/008)
History: Received April 10, 2006 , Accepted July 2, 2006
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, February 2007, Vol. 16, 65-68. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2007/008)
History: Received April 10, 2006; Accepted July 2, 2006
Web of Science® Times Cited: 8

Purpose In order to produce a compact and readable review of clinical issues for clinicians, the authors developed a “1,000-bites” format in which they discuss a topic initiated by one of the authors.

Method The format is designed to give the reader the feeling of contemporaneous observation of a conversation between 2 authors. To that end, the format guidelines are as follows: (a) alternating responses from the authors with no response greater than 100 words; (b) a maximum of 1,000 words per author; (c) when one author has used 1,000 words, the other can complete 1,000 words in a final response or opt to not issue a final response; (d) debate may be controversial and vigorous but must be collegial; and (e) a noncontemporaneous edit by an author to a response requires the agreement of the other author.

Conclusions The “1,000-bites” format achieved a collegial exchange between 2 discussants with differing opinions by creating a single work of shared authorship by them. Arguably, this format is more informative to clinicians than independent essays and rebuttals in a sequence of letters to the editor. One of its advantages is that it provides insights into the issue at stake by means of short and contemporaneous segments of spontaneous interaction.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access