Introduction to the special issue self‐modeling: Self‐modeling as a Treatment for a Myriad of Issues

Video self-modeling as a post-treatment fluency recovery strategy for adults

“…In particular, Olive and Franco (2008) suggest that SMD all results are more likely to accurately reflect treatment effects than SMD 3 given that SMD 3 is likely inflated due to the small number of data points. However, evidence in this study and in Bray and Kehle (2012) suggest that VSM as a fluency recovery tool seems to produce lagged treatment effects. Therefore, longer treatment phases are needed to more firmly establish the effects of VSM as a fluency recovery tool.…”

“…In contrast to P1, P2 had more robust reductions in stuttering; visual analysis and all estimates of effect size suggest that clinically meaningful reductions in stuttering can range from moderate to large when VSM treatment is effective. Findings of lagged treatment effects for both P1 and P2 are not unusual given that VSM treatment effects are not usually immediate (Bray & Kehle, 2012). In contrast to P1 and P2, visual analysis of P3"s %SS data and his PND do not suggest a treatment effect.…”

“…Relative to PND and % Change, calculation of an SMD results in an actual effect size that can be interpreted using Cohen"s (1988) guidelines (Olive & Franco, 2008), from which confidence intervals can be determined using differing distributional and variability assumptions (Busk & Serlin,1992). Given that VSM treatment effects are not usually immediately evident (i.e., they are lagged), but usually occur within a month (Bray & Kehle, 2012), SMD and % Change effects for the last 3 treatment data points relative to baseline are presented in addition to SMD effects for all data points.…”