Behavioural treatment programs and selectivity of speaking at follow-up in a sample of 25 selective mutes

Sluckin, Alice; Foreman, Nigel; Herbert, Martin

doi:10.1080/00050069108258851

Cited by 28 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If we put these results together with family pathology investigated at the time of referral, it becomes evident that individual psychopathology and family psychopathology correspond with each other and may form the background for the high persistence and poor outcome of this disorder. Our results are in line with the 2-10 year follow-up study by Sluckin et al (1991) who also found a poor outcome associated with marked family psychopathology.…”

Section: Discussion S Limitation Of the Studysupporting

confidence: 82%

A follow-up study of 45 patients with elective mutism

Remschmidt

Poller

Herpertz‐Dahlmann

et al. 2001

European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences

143

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forty five patients (23 boys and 22 girls) with elective mutism (8.7 +/- 3.6 years old), who were referred to a university department and a child guidance clinic within a 15-year-period, were followed up on average 12 years later. For 41 of them, sufficient information could be obtained at follow-up, and 31 patients could be investigated personally. At follow-up, an interview and a standardized psychopathological examination were carried out as well as two standardized biographic inventories. The main results were: 1) a high load of individual and family psychopathology was characteristic of the patients. The disorder started already at age 3 to 4 and referral age was 8 years on average. 2) In 16 out of 41 patients (39%), a complete remission could be observed. All other patients still revealed some communication problems. 3) The formerly mute patients described themselves as less independent, less motivated with regard to school achievement, less self-confident and less mature and healthy in comparison to a normal reference group. 4) A poor outcome could be best predicted by the variable "mutism within the core family"at the time of referral.

show abstract

Section: Discussion S Limitation Of the Studysupporting

confidence: 82%

A follow-up study of 45 patients with elective mutism

Remschmidt

Poller

Herpertz‐Dahlmann

et al. 2001

European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences

143

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of SM treatment studies are limited in the lack of comparison groups, but there has been one small group study comparing different SM treatments. Sluckin, Foreman, and Herbert (1991) conducted a follow‐up study of 25 children who were referred by their schools for treatment of SM. Eleven of these children participated in behavioral therapy that used a combination of shaping and stimulus fading procedures, while the remaining 14 children participated in school‐based remedial programs led by special needs teachers.…”

Section: The Present Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of the literature in this area consists of retrospective record reviews, uncontrolled case studies, and a small number of single‐participant experiments of varied methodological quality. To date there has been only one small non‐controlled treatment study (Krohn, Weckstein, & Wright, 1992) and one small group study comparing two different SM treatments (Sluckin, Foreman, & Herbert, 1991). The age range of the children studied is quite narrow, with only two studies describing interventions with older children (Bonovitz, 2003; Rye & Ullman, 1999).…”

Section: Future Research Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practitioner Review: Psychosocial interventions for children with selective mutism: a critical evaluation of the literature from 1990–2005

Cohan

Chavira

Stein

2006

Child Psychology Psychiatry

146

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although much of this literature is limited by methodological weaknesses, the existing research provides support for the use of behavioral and cognitive-behavioral interventions. Multimodal treatments also appear promising, but the essential components of these interventions have yet to be established. An outline of a cognitive-behavioral treatment package for a typical SM child is provided and the review concludes with suggestions for future research.

show abstract

“…The first study examined retrospectively the records for 25 children with SM treated either with behavioural therapy or a school-based remediation programme. The children treated with behavioural therapy showed a greater improvement compared to the group which received the school-based remediation intervention (Sluckin, Foreman, & Herbert, 1991). In the second and more recent study (Vecchio & Kearney, 2009) an alternating treatment design was applied in nine children with SM.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomized controlled trial of a home and school‐based intervention for selective mutism – defocused communication and behavioural techniques

Oerbeck

Stein

Wentzel‐Larsen

et al. 2013

Child Adoles Ment Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Randomized controlled psychosocial treatment studies on selective mutism (SM) are lacking. Method: Overall, 24 children with SM, aged 3-9 years, were randomized to 3 months treatment (n = 12) or wait list (n = 12). Primary outcome measure was the School Speech Questionnaire. Results: A significant time by group interaction was found (p = .029) with significantly increased speech in the treatment group (p = .004) and no change in wait list controls (p = .936). A time by age interaction favoured younger children (p = .029). Clinical trail registration: Norwegian Research CouncilNCT01002196. Conclusions: The treatment significantly improved speech. Greater improvement in the younger age group highlights the importance of an early intervention. Key Practitioner Message• Early detection and treatment of children with selective mutism is crucial due to the elevated risk for chronicity of symptoms.• The preschool arena is an important setting for the recognition of anxious and withdrawn behaviour that often precedes selective mutism.• Evidence supports the use of a home-and school-based psychosocial intervention to increase speech.• Greater improvement in younger children (preschool) highlights the importance of early intervention.Keywords: Selective mutism; randomized controlled trial; behavioural intervention; social phobia; childhood anxiety IntroductionChildren with SM are characterized by a consistent lack of speech in specific social situations in which there is an expectation for speaking (e.g. school) despite speaking in other situations (e.g. home) (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). SM is found to be associated with comorbid anxiety diagnoses, in particular with social anxiety disorder, as well as neurodevelopmental disorders (Kristensen, 2000). Age of onset is typically before age 5 years (Black & Uhde, 1995). SM is relatively rare, with a prevalence of about 0.7-0.8% in childhood, somewhat more frequent in girls (Bergman, Piacentini, & McCracken, 2002). A 0.1% prevalence of SM was found in a representative sample of Norwegian 4 year olds using a preschool diagnostic interview (Wichstrom et al., 2012).SM is considered to be hard to treat and the literature on treatment for SM is dominated by case studies or case series. One review describes that the few existing studies (since 1980) with samples above five children have mainly used behavioural, cognitive-behavioural or multimodal interventions (Manassis, 2009). Another review states that behavioural interventions (including stimulus fading, desensitization, shaping, modelling and contingency management) are most frequently used (Cohan, Chavira, & Stein, 2006). Only two studies include a comparison group. The first study examined retrospectively the records for 25 children with SM treated either with behavioural therapy or a school-based remediation programme. The children treated with behavioural therapy showed a greater improvement compared to the group which received the school-based remediation intervention (Sluckin, Foreman, & Herbert,...

show abstract

Behavioural treatment programs and selectivity of speaking at follow-up in a sample of 25 selective mutes

Cited by 28 publications

References 26 publications

A follow-up study of 45 patients with elective mutism

A follow-up study of 45 patients with elective mutism

Practitioner Review: Psychosocial interventions for children with selective mutism: a critical evaluation of the literature from 1990–2005

A randomized controlled trial of a home and school‐based intervention for selective mutism – defocused communication and behavioural techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About