Nineteen adults who stutter participated in a 3-week intensive stuttering modification treatment program (the Successful Stuttering Management Program [SSMP]). A series of 14 fluency and affective-based measures were assessed before treatment, immediately after treatment, and 6 months after treatment. Measures included stuttering frequency; the Stuttering Severity Instrument for Children and Adults, Third Edition (SSI-3); a self-rating of stuttering severity; the Perceptions of Stuttering Inventory (PSI); the Locus of Control of Behavior Scale; the Beck Depression Inventory; the Multicomponent Anxiety Inventory IV (MCAI-IV); and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Statistically significant improvements were observed on 4 of the total 14 measures immediately following treatment and on 4 measures at 6 months posttreatment. Statistically significant improvements observed immediately posttreatment included scores on the SSI and the Struggle, Avoidance, and Expectancy subscales of the PSI. Sustained statistically significant improvements at 6 months posttreatment were observed only on client-reported perceptions of stuttering (the Avoidance and Expectancy subscales of the PSI) and 2 specific affective functioning measures (the Psychic and Somatic Anxiety subscales of the MCAI-IV). The SSMP generated some anxiolytic effects but was ineffective in producing durable reductions of core stuttering behaviors, such as stuttering frequency and severity. The discussion focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, and durability of the SSMP treatment approach.

Purpose This is a response to B. Ryan’s (2006) letter to the editor regarding “Intensive Stuttering Modification Therapy: A Multidimensional Assessment of Treatment Outcomes,” by M. Blomgren, N. Roy, T. Callister, and R. Merrill (2005). Issues discussed relate to (a) the goals of stuttering modification treatment, (b) appropriate “documentation” of stuttering treatment programs, and (c) dose–response relationships as they pertain to stuttering treatment. A brief tutorial and discussion concerning appropriate use of terminology associated with stuttering treatment outcomes research is provided.

Purpose This letter is a response to P. Reitzes and G. Snyder’s (2006) letter to the editor regarding “Intensive Stuttering Modification Therapy: A Multidimensional Assessment of Treatment Outcomes,” by M. Blomgren, N. Roy, T. Callister, and R. Merrill (2005). The focus of this letter is on issues related to (a) intended and unintended outcomes of stuttering modification treatment, (b) the rationale underlying specific stuttering treatment outcomes measures, and (c) “truth in advertising” of stuttering treatment programs. A secondary purpose is to provide a primer on vocabulary use in treatment research.