Reply to Ingham and Saben's comments on 'Phonological disorders in children: Changes in phonological process use during treatment'

Abstract

Ingham and Saben's comments on our paper seem to highlight fundamental differences in the perceived value of qualitative research. We interpret their position to be that only quantitative research which empirically tests specific hypotheses has the potential to contribute significantly to knowledge. Our position is that there is also a need for the type of basic observational research reported in 'Phonological disorders in children: changes in phonological process use during treatment'. McEwen and Karlan (1990) state that the advantages of such case studies include: (1) the provision of detailed data which allow design of clinically relevant controlled studies; (2) description of actual clinical practice (through retrospective reporting); and (3) evaluation through application of measurement techniques.