In Response to Packman and Onslow (1999) In their letter, Packman and Onslow (1999) make several points of clarification with respect to our earlier letter (Curlee & Yairi, 1998). We regard most of these points as dealing with matters of interpretation and have no problem with Packman and Onslow’s clarifications. As Packman and Onslow note, however, ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   February 01, 1999
In Response to Packman and Onslow (1999)
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Richard Curlee
    University of Arizona
  • Ehud Yairi
    University of Arizona
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Professional Issues & Training / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   February 01, 1999
In Response to Packman and Onslow (1999)
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, February 1999, Vol. 8, 95. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0801.95
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, February 1999, Vol. 8, 95. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0801.95
In their letter, Packman and Onslow (1999) make several points of clarification with respect to our earlier letter (Curlee & Yairi, 1998). We regard most of these points as dealing with matters of interpretation and have no problem with Packman and Onslow’s clarifications. As Packman and Onslow note, however, in our earlier Second Opinion article (1998), we stated that Packman and Onslow (1998) and Ingham and Cordes (1998) both had cited stuttering prevalence estimates of 0.5% and incidence figures of 10% (p. 21). In fact, these figures were cited only by Ingham and Cordes. We regret this error of attribution.
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