对“关于代币强化与口吃治疗：对豪伊和伍兹（1982 年）报告的发现的另一种看法”的回应。
A response to "On token reinforcement and stuttering therapy: Another view on findings reported by Howie and Woods (1982)".
机构信息
University of New South Wales.
出版信息
J Appl Behav Anal. 1983 Winter;16(4):471-5. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1983.16-471.
Ingham's (1983) critique of our research is based on the unwarranted assumption that it claimed to be a replication of Ingham and Andrews' (1973a) study. Our report did not claim to be a replication. Procedural differences between treatments do not preclude the possibility of drawing general conclusions that may apply to related treatments, or suggesting possible confounding variables that might be operating in another study. We have nevertheless dealt with each of Ingham's methodological objections. In general, we believe that we struck an acceptable compromise between the needs of clients and theoretical and research demands. We stand by our original conclusions, and note with satisfaction that Ingham concurs with our emphasis on systematic structure rather than the presence or absence of rewards as the crucial component of this type of stuttering treatment.
英厄姆（1983）对我们研究的批评是基于一个毫无根据的假设，即它声称是对英厄姆和安德鲁斯（1973a）研究的复制。我们的报告并没有声称是复制。治疗方法的差异并不排除得出可能适用于相关治疗的一般结论的可能性，或者提出可能在另一项研究中起作用的混杂变量的可能性。然而，我们已经处理了英厄姆的每一个方法上的反对意见。总的来说，我们认为我们在客户的需求与理论和研究需求之间达成了一个可以接受的妥协。我们坚持我们最初的结论，并满意地注意到，英厄姆同意我们对系统结构的重视，而不是作为这种口吃治疗的关键组成部分的奖励的存在或缺失。
Zotero 插件