Inside Most of us work awfully hard to try to ensure that the treatment we provide to our clients, and the methods we teach our students to use for clinical intervention, are theoretically sound, are empirically tested, are efficacious. We tryto be objective. Our clinical experience, however, leads us to logical ... Editorial
Editorial  |   January 01, 1992
Inside
 
Author Notes
Article Information
Editorial
Editorial   |   January 01, 1992
Inside
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, January 1992, Vol. 1, 2-4. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0102.02
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, January 1992, Vol. 1, 2-4. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0102.02
Most of us work awfully hard to try to ensure that the treatment we provide to our clients, and the methods we teach our students to use for clinical intervention, are theoretically sound, are empirically tested, are efficacious. We tryto be objective. Our clinical experience, however, leads us to logical approaches that may be more subjective and not so well documented. How long do we wait to include a particular procedure in our treatment paradigm? How much data is necessary to say to ourselves, “Yes, this approach is sound. It can be used effectively.” These issues, among others, come into play in this issue’s Second Opinion. Biklen and Calculator present their views and retorts regarding a method of treatment that is growing in popularity daily, facilitated communication. And McLean offers a thought-provoking synthesis of their views in conclusion.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access