Early Stuttering: Article Analysis

In the article “The Demands and Capacities Model: Implications for Evidenced Base Practice in the Treatment of Early Stuttering,” Ann Packman and Mark Oruslow examine The demands and capacity Model (DCM) via the lens of skepticism. It is widely known that stuttering is a complicated disorder, with a multi factorial etiology. However, the DCM theory does not support a specific etiology or treatment possibilities, but rather yields more questions, and making stuttering even more complicated.
The DCM theory is designed on the premise that a child stutters due to demands that are too high for the child, surpassing his capacity for fluency. Unfortunately, the theory ends there. The theory does not elaborate on specific demands that are too high, but instead leaves clinicians with possibilities (e.g., motor, linguistic, emotional) and further explains that each child is different and has a different capacity for
More so, there is research in various contras supporting treatment approaches that work via the opposite premise. Treatment approaches such as the Lidcombe program work on increasing the demands of a child with a stutter via metalinguistic to minimize a stutter. By taking part in metalinguistic and self-awareness of his stutter, a child is putting more demands on his speech. According to the DCM theory, treatment approaches such as the Lidcombe program should exacerbate a child’s stutter. However research has show then opposite effect, it is in fact increasing a child with a stutter’s fluency.
Overall, the article explains the there are many faults to the DCM theory behind stuttering. Although the approach has many redeeming qualities that may or may not be true, there is not enough success to establish this as an effective approach. The theory is a basic theory that needs to be further developed and research in the theoretical and clinical aspect of speech language