S This study examined group differences in language and pragmatic functions across sex‐, age‐and IQ‐matched samples of Asperger syndrome (N=22), high‐functioning autism (N=11), deficits in attention, motor control and perception (DAMP) (N=11), and speech and language disorder (SLD) (N=11) groups. The purpose was to explore possible differentiating features in the fields of vocabulary, comprehension and pragmatics and, in addition, to determine whether Asperger syndrome could be reliably separated from high‐functioning autism on these variables. The findings suggest that Asperger syndrome may be associated with higher full‐scale and verbal IQ than high‐functioning autism; Asperger syndrome may not be associated with better pragmatic skills (as defined in this context) than high‐functioning autism; language comprehension may not clearly separate Asperger syndrome and high‐functioning autism once the effects of very low IQ are partialled out; both DAMP and SLD can be distinctly separated from Asperger syndrome and autism. Cette étude examine les différences de groupes, du point de vue du langage et des fonctions pragma‐tiques, entre des échantillons assortis pour le sexe, l'âge et le QI, de syndromes d'Asperger (N=22), d'autistes de haut fonctionnement (N=11), de deficits d'attention, de contôle moteur et de perception (DAMP) (N=11) et de troubles du langage et de la parole (SLD) (N=11). Le but poursuivi étant d'explorer les traits différenciatifs possibles dans les domains du vocabulaire, de la compréhension et de la pragmatique et, de surcroit, de voir si on peut faire une séparation fiable entre le syndrome d'Asperger et l'autisme de haut fonctionnement en partant de ces variables. Les résultats suggèrent les faits suivants: le syndrome d'Aspberger peut être lié à un QI général et verbal plus élevé que l'autism de haut fonctionnement; il se peut que le syndrome d'Asperger ne soit pas lié à meilleures capacités pragmatiques (telles qu'elles sont définies dans ce contexte) que l'autisme de haut fonctionnement; la compréhension du langage n'établit pas nécessaurement une nette différence entre le syndrome d'Asperger et l'autisme de haut fonctionnement une fois qu'on a éliminé les effets de QI très faibles; et enfin de DAMP et le SLD se séparent nettement due syndrome d'Asperger et de l'autisme. Diese Studie untersuchte Gruppenunterschiede in sprachlichen und pragmatischen Funktionen bei Stichproben von Asperger‐Syndrom (N=22), DAMP (Deficits in Attention, Motor‐control and Perception = Mängel der Aufmerksamkeit, der Motorkontrolle und der Perzeption) (N=11) und SLD (Speech and Language Disorder = Sprech und Sprachstörung) N=ll), die nach Geschlecht, Alter und IQ gleichgestellt waren. Zweck der Untersuchung war de Ermittlung möglicher differenzierender Merkmale in den Bereichen Vokabular, Verstehen und pragmatischem Handeln; zusätzlich sollte festgestellt werden, ob mit diesen Variablen das Asperger Syndrom zuverlässig von hoch‐funktionerendem (schwach ausgeprägtem) Autismus zu unterscheiden sei. Die Ergebnis...

No abstract

We have been asked to reply to the letter formulated by Dr. Robert Kroll concerning treatment efficacy research in the area of stuttering in general and to comment on the specific criticisms put forward regarding our study published in this journal in 1999 (4).The main objection expressed by Dr Kroll has to do with the 'lack of data pertaining to the actual fluency' (fluency counts, i.e., stuttering frequency). The reduced focus on audible stuttering is not a flaw in the design of the study. Rather, it is the result of a conscious choice of outcome measures founded in the philosophy of therapy. Consequently, we do not agree with Dr. Kroll that the philosophical issues can be separated from the study design.Our therapy program is influenced by the philosophy of non-avoidance and by thoughts and methods of Sheehan (5), Stromsta (6) and Van Riper (7) among others. The overall aim of the therapy is to guide the clients in finding a better way of coping with their stuttering problem, that is, develop their social and communication skills and learn how to stutter more fluently. The evaluation variables were stuttering severity, stuttering/communication problems, social skills and Locus of Control of Behaviour (3) all in accordance with the purpose of the therapy. The specific outcome measures chosen to reflect changes in these variables were assessed in four different ways: by an independent listener, by self-assessments of the subjects, and by the therapists and youth leaders. Conture (1, 2) stresses the need for a combination of subject-independent and subject-dependent measures of change in a) stuttering or stuttered speech, b) related attitudes and feelings and c) willingness to enter into and engage in various communication situations with various people.We agree with Dr. Kroll that there is a need for peer assessed, published studies of the effects of different stuttering therapy efforts and we welcome discussions regarding both the philosophy behind different therapy approaches and selected outcome methods. However, we are convinced that to focus on fluency alone is to simplify a complex, dynamic and multi-factorial phenomenon.