Stuttering therapy through telepractice in Turkey: A mixed method study.

Only 20 adults were studied, and groups were not randomly assigned, so differences in fluency outcomes could reflect who was placed in telepractice or in-person therapy. Two participants withdrew, and the repeated-measures analysis excluded withdrawn participants, so some analyses used 9 participants. The therapy combined fluency shaping, stuttering modification and counseling, so the study cannot show which component produced the change. The reading %SS result was inconsistent: the repeated-measures comparison reported a difference, but the group comparisons at each time point did not. The SSI-4 had not been adapted to Turkish adults, and the OASES was a translated version with two items removed, so some outcome scores may not be fully comparable to original measures. Qualitative interviews were conducted only with the telepractice group, so the study does not describe the in-person group's experience. All therapy was delivered by one experienced clinician in one Turkish setting, so results may not transfer to other clinics or therapists.

The authors report no declarations of interest.

Do not conclude that telepractice is proven equivalent to in-person stuttering therapy for all adults. The study had only 20 participants, groups were not assigned by randomization, and the therapy combined fluency shaping, stuttering modification and counseling, so the delivery method alone cannot be credited.