I'll try and answer this from a childhood treatment perspective, if I'm understanding your question. I think you're asking about considering client perspectives in treatment outcomes. We have more treatment efficacy data than we have ever had just published in recent years, but we still need so much more. A couple of the most significant papers in recent years regarding child treatment data (in my opinion) have been by Dr. Franken and colleagues in Rotterdam showing that even though Lidcombe and more traditional demands-and-capacities treatment show very similar treatment outcome results, neither are really beating spontaneous recovery rates (natural recovery in young children who stutter). The big open question is why, but I think it's telling that in a follow-up paper just released a few years ago showed that about 10-15% of children who were considered recovered by clinicians (i.e., they were demonstrating fluent speech) still self-reported significant adverse impact related to stuttering later in childhood. So, the question is whether they were truly recovered in the first place. I'd argue that how most clinicians think about fluency not equating to recovery in adults *also* should apply to children who stutter. I think clinicians need to listen and incorporate the perspectives of young children who stutter more into diagnostic labels, treatment, and outcomes.