A response to "On token reinforcement and stuttering therapy: Another view on findings reported by Howie and Woods (1982)".

Haemmerlie (1983) wrote a reply to critics of an earlier stuttering treatment paper. The critics said the token system was the magic piece. The author said no, the structure of the practice sessions mattered more.

The paper is a short, sharp defense of method choices. It tells readers to look at how the therapy was run, not just the tokens handed out.

The letter does not give new data. It simply restates that the original study controlled timing, response rate, and feedback. Those details, not the type of reward, drove the fluency gains.

Gaylord-Ross et al. (1995) later showed the same behavioral package kept stuttering low 3.5 years after treatment. This long follow-up extends the idea that well-structured practice, not tokens alone, gives lasting change.

Johnston et al. (1972) and Glodowski et al. (2020) seem to clash. M et al. saw big articulation gains with classroom tokens, while Glodowski saw tokens slow some teens with autism. The difference is population and schedule. Kids with articulation errors thrived on steady token exchange; some autistic adolescents shut down when token ratios got large. Haemmerlie (1983) would say the schedule details, not the tokens, explain both outcomes.

Sasson et al. (2018) used the same move: defend your method when critics zoom in on the wrong variable. Both papers remind us to spell out procedural nuts and bolts when we write up treatments.

When you pick or design a stuttering program, list the practice schedule, response goals, and feedback timing before you list the rewards. If fluency breaks down, tweak the structure first; swap the token type later. Share this focus with supervisors and families so they judge progress by speaking opportunities mastered, not stickers earned.