Thanks for your question...And, right, there's a lot more that we need to understand about "what" works in therapy and "for whom" does it work. You highlighted exactly the reason that this is needed -- some things seem to work for some people, other things seem to work for other people, and what we really need is an individualized approach where the clinician could help with the speaker find what is right for them at that particular point in their lives. That is what specialists endeavor to do (or, at least, what they SHOULD endeavor to do ;-), but unfortunately, the vast majority of speech-language pathologists simply don't have the specific expertise in stuttering to get to that point. One way that this has been approached in our field is based on research and growth in the field of psychology. Specifically, rather than focusing on the differences between various therapy approaches, there has been a movement toward what is known as "common factors" or "contextualized" approaches in which researchers seek to understand what is similar across therapy approaches. What is the active ingredient across a range of treatments that might actually be responsible for the changes. In psychology, it turns out that the aspect of therapy that is responsible for the biggest percent of change is not the specific method or technique that a clinician uses, but rather the relationship that the clinician develops with the client. We seek to do the same in stuttering - Walt Manning, Laura Plexico, and Tricia Zebrowksi and several others have done research examining common factors in stuttering therapy. General findings suggest that, again, the relationship matters, the goals matter (not just fluency-focused), and individualization matters. As we begin to fold this work more into our understandings of stuttering and stuttering therapy, I do believe that we will see improvements in outcomes...but, again, we first have to overcome the field's fixation with fluency as the only acceptable outcome from stuttering therapy. Progress is being made, but we have a ways to go.