Webcam Delivery of the Camperdown Program for Adolescents Who Stutter: A Phase II Trial

Headnote

Purpose: This Phase II clinical trial examined stuttering adolescents' responsiveness to the Webcam-delivered Camperdown Program.

Method: Sixteen adolescents were treated by Webcam with no clinic attendance. Primary outcome was percentage of syllables stuttered (%SS). Secondary outcomes were number of sessions, weeks and hours to maintenance, self-reported stuttering severity, speech satisfaction, speech naturalness, self-reported anxiety, self-reported situation avoidance, self-reported impact of stuttering, and satisfaction with Webcam treatment delivery. Data were collected before treatment and up to 12 months after entry into maintenance.

Results: Fourteen participants completed the treatment. Group mean stuttering frequency was 6.1 %SS (range, 0.7-14.7) pretreatment and 2.8 %SS (range, 0-12.2) 12 months after entry into maintenance, with half the participants stuttering at 1.2 %SS or lower at this time. Treatment was completed in a mean of 25 sessions (15.5 hr). Self-reported stuttering severity ratings, self-reported stuttering impact, and speech satisfaction scores supported %SS outcomes. Minimal anxiety was evident either pre- or post-treatment. Individual responsiveness to the treatment varied, with half the participants showing little reduction in avoidance of speech situations.

Conclusions: The Webcam service delivery model was appealing to participants, although it was efficacious and efficient for only half. Suggestions for future stuttering treatment development for adolescents are discussed.

Key Words: stuttering, adolescents, Camperdown Program, telehealth

Adolescence is a developmental stage during which there is an increasing reliance on the peer group, a strong drive to conform to group norms, and a high perceived need to "fit in" (Coleman & Hendry, 1999; Heaven, 2001). Stuttering, however, makes adolescents dif- ferent. This difference can make them vulnerable to nega- tive peer attitudes (Craig, Tran, & Craig, 2003; Doody, Kalinowski, Armson, & Stuart, 1993; Flynn & St. Louis, 2011; Hughes, Gabel, Irani, & Schlangheck, 2010; Van Borsei, Brepoels, & De Coene, 2011) and negative social consequences (Blood & Blood, 2004, 2007; Davis, Howell, & Cooke, 2002; Hearne, Packman, Onslow, & Quine, 2008; Hugh-Jones & Smith, 1999; Langevin, 2009; Langevin, Bortnick, Hammer, & Wiebe, 1998). Teasing and bullying are serious and yet common social consequences of stuttering (Blood & Blood, 2007; Langevin et ah, 1998) that can po- tentially have long-term detrimental effects. Unsurprisingly, adolescents who stutter also show negative attitudes toward themselves as communicators (Blood, Blood, Tellis, & Gabel, 2003) and have a perceived...