Abstract
Purpose Social validation of treatment outcomes provides external validity of treatment from the perspective of untrained observers. To date, clinical efficacy studies of the Blank Center CARE Model indicate post-treatment gains in communication competence from the perspective of the participants and clinicians. An initial social validation study corroborated positive self- and clinician-rated treatment ratings with ratings from the general public for a single participant. The present study was designed to replicate and extend these findings by assessing clinical outcomes from the perspective of untrained observers across multiple participants and contexts.
Method Ten adults who stutter provided communication samples one week before and after completing the Blank Center CARE Model treatment. A total of 1,110 untrained observers were recruited. Each untrained observer rated only one participant at one timepoint (pre-treatment or post-treatment) in one context (dyad or presentation), and each participant was asked to provide only one rating (communication competence or stuttering severity).
Results A significant interaction indicated that post-treatment gains were observed for communication competence, but not stuttering severity, for both contexts.
Conclusions Present findings provide further social validation of the Blank Center CARE Model of treatment. Untrained observers confirmed that participation in this strengths-based approach significantly enhances communication competence. Notably, these changes were observed regardless of pre- to post-treatment stuttering severity, lending additional support to the premise that communication and fluency are independent constructs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Institutional Review Board of The University of Texas at Austin gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
