Coordinator’s Corner Are there monsters in our past? In our present? Recently, the print and electronic media, including prominent national outlets, publicized an old study with provocative implications for ethical conduct in research and our beliefs about the underlying nature of stuttering. For the benefit of those who have not seen ... Coordinator's Column
Coordinator's Column  |   April 01, 2001
Coordinator’s Corner
Author Notes
Article Information
Fluency Disorders / Coordinator's Column
Coordinator's Column   |   April 01, 2001
Coordinator’s Corner
SIG 4 Perspectives on Fluency and Fluency Disorders, April 2001, Vol. 11, 1-4. doi:10.1044/ffd11.3.1
SIG 4 Perspectives on Fluency and Fluency Disorders, April 2001, Vol. 11, 1-4. doi:10.1044/ffd11.3.1
Are there monsters in our past? In our present? Recently, the print and electronic media, including prominent national outlets, publicized an old study with provocative implications for ethical conduct in research and our beliefs about the underlying nature of stuttering. For the benefit of those who have not seen this coverage, I will briefly recap the story. In 1939, Mary Tudor, a master’s level student of Wendell Johnson, conducted a thesis designed to investigate the effects that labeling a child as a stutterer would have on his or her fluency. The intent of the study was to test what has come to be called the diagnoso-genic theory of stuttering. Indeed, the study’s title specifies its intent: An experimental study of the effect of evaluative labeling on speech fluency.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Become a SIG Affiliate
Pay Per View
Entire SIG 4 Perspectives on Fluency and Fluency Disorders content & archive
24-hour access
This Issue
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access
We've Changed Our Publication Model...
The 19 individual SIG Perspectives publications have been relaunched as the new, all-in-one Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups.