Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The WWC review (What Works Clearinghouse, 2007a, p.3, lightly edited) summarises the five studies as follows: 1) Baenen et al. (1997) was a randomized controlled trial that focused on first-grade students from Wake County, North Carolina. The WWC review focuses on the outcomes of students who qualified for and were randomly assigned to either the Reading Recovery intervention or a comparison group. From an original sample size of 168, outcomes were assessed at three time points: end of first grade (N=147), end of second grade (N=147), and end of third grade (N=127). [N.B. Only the end of first grade results are included in the summary below.] 2) Pinnell, DeFord and Lyons (1988) was a randomized controlled trial. The study sample was first-grade students distributed across 14 schools in Columbus, Ohio. Two groups were formed by randomly assigning students to an intervention group, which received Reading Recovery in addition to their regular classroom instruction (N=38), or to a control group, which received an alternative compensatory program (N=53). This comparison met WWC evidence standards. 3) Pinnell et al. (1994) was a randomized controlled trial that randomly assigned 10 low-achieving first-grade students in each of 10 Ohio schools. The WWC review focuses only on the eight schools that successfully implemented randomization for the intervention (N=31) and comparison (N=48) conditions. 4) Schwartz (2005) was a randomized controlled trial of first-grade students from 14 states. The WWC focused on the 37 students across several schools who were randomly assigned to receive the intervention during the first half of the year. The other 37 students, who were randomly assigned to receive the intervention during the second half of the year, served as the comparison group during the first half of the year. The groups were compared at mid-year, before the comparison group had begun receiving Reading Recovery. 5) Iversen and Tunmer (1993) was a quasi-experimental design study that included first-grade students from 30 school districts in Rhode Island. The study compared outcomes for students participating in Reading Recovery (N=32) with students in a comparison group who did not receive Reading Recovery (N=32), who were matched on the basis of pre-test scores. The comparison group received standard small-group, out-of-class support services. [N.B. The third condition in this study, with added phonics as mentioned above, is not included in this description.] The key findings among the wealth of detail in the WWC review are the following. The Pinnell, DeFord and Lyons (1988), Schwartz (2005) and Iversen and Tunmer (1993) studies between them reported five measures of word recognition or decoding. From these, the WWC analysts calculated an overall effect size of 1.00, signalling a large impact despite some individually non-significant results. The Pinnell, DeFord and Lyons (1988) and Schwartz (2005) studies between them reported three measures of comprehension. The overall effect size was 0.35, small but still significant. All five studies between them reported 10 measures of ‘general reading achievement’ (this covered variously dictation and writing vocabulary from the Clay Observation Survey, and two US reading tests). The overall effect size was 0.92, again large. (It should be noted that these effect sizes were calculated as simple averages of the individual effect sizes, and were not weighted to take account of sample sizes, as would be the practice 102 Intervention for Dyslexia
in a meta-analysis. However, the averages do take account of non-significant and null findings from individual studies.) It should also be noted that, in the majority of cases, the measures yielding positive results were drawn from Clay’s (1993a) Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, and only in a few cases were results from independent standardised tests. Three of the five studies examined the effects of Reading Recovery on letter knowledge, but only Iversen and Tunmer (1993) found an unequivocally significant positive effect, which was on the Letter Identification subtest of the Observation Survey. Three of the studies examined the effects of Reading Recovery on phonics, with Pinnell, DeFord and Lyons (1988), Iversen and Tunmer (1993) and Schwartz (2005) all reporting significant positive effects on the Word Recognition subtest of the Observation Survey. Iversen and Tunmer (1993) also found significant positive effects on two independent measures: the Dolch Word Recognition Test, and a pseudoword decoding task. In addition, Iversen and Tunmer (1993) reported significant positive effects on two phonemic awareness measures, namely a phoneme deletion task and the Yopp-Singer Phoneme Segmentation Test. Pinnell, DeFord and Lyons (1988), Iversen and Tunmer (1993) and Schwartz (2005) all reported a statistically significant positive effect on the Concepts about Print subtest of the Observation Survey. The results for fluency and comprehension were more mixed. Schwartz (2005) found significant effects on the Slosson Oral Reading Test (Revised) and the Text Reading Level subtest of the Observation Survey. Pinnell, DeFord and Lyons (1988) found a statistically significant effect on the Reading Comprehension and Reading Vocabulary subtests of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS). However, Schwartz (2005) reported no statistically significant effect of Reading Recovery on the Degrees of Reading Power Test. In other literacy areas highlighted in the What Works Clearinghouse report (2007a) some positive effects were noted. Pinnell, DeFord and Lyons (1988), Schwartz (2005) and Iversen and Tunmer (1993) all found statistically significant effects of Reading Recovery on two subtests of the Observation Survey: Dictation and Writing Vocabulary. Pinnell et al. (1994) found significant effects on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, the Dictation subtest of the Observation Survey, and the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (Revised). However, Baenen et al. (1997) did not find a statistically significant effect of Reading Recovery on grade retention. It should be pointed out that one of the five key studies featuring in the What Works Clearinghouse report (2007a) – that by Pinnell et al. (1994) – has been criticised by Rasinski (1995) on the grounds that instructional time varied across the different treatment conditions used in the study. The What Works Clearinghouse report was only concerned with Reading Recovery and so did not consider data obtained from the alternative interventions. However, when instructional time was factored into the analysis, Rasinski (1995) found that the alternative interventions yielded better outcomes than Reading Recovery. Another WWC review (What Works Clearinghouse, 2007b) searched for studies evaluating programmes for children in Kindergarten to grade 3 (Years 1-4) intended to improve achievement in the four domains of alphabetics (phonemic awareness and phonics), oral reading fluency, comprehension, or general reading achievement. The reviewers took in both initial teaching schemes and those intended as catch-up programmes. They found 887 studies, of which 51 studies of 24 programmes met their evidence standards, 27 without reservations and 24 with reservations. Of the 24 programmes, at least four are known to be in use in the UK: Accelerated Reader, Corrective Reading, Reading Recovery, and Success for All. Of the 24 programmes, only Intervention for Dyslexia 103
Page 1 and 2:
Intervention for Dyslexia A review
Page 3 and 4:
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........
Page 5 and 6:
4.3.4 Computer-based screening test
Page 7 and 8:
presuppose any neurological link be
Page 9 and 10:
(0.56 for reading accuracy, 0.91 fo
Page 11 and 12:
instruction in phonics, it cannot b
Page 13 and 14:
Acknowledgements I would like to ex
Page 15 and 16:
The remit calls for conclusions to
Page 17 and 18:
Co-occurring difficulties may be se
Page 19 and 20:
Teacher Status (ATS). In general, c
Page 21 and 22:
Table 1. Why use multisensory teach
Page 23 and 24:
pupils are going to be identified a
Page 25 and 26:
coloured overlay as the criterion f
Page 27 and 28:
have reported standard scores; unfo
Page 29 and 30:
2 Intervention studies in the US an
Page 31 and 32:
progressing normally (36 boys and 2
Page 33 and 34:
training in phonological awareness,
Page 35 and 36:
subtest. All these children were in
Page 37 and 38:
intervention identified by Vaughn a
Page 39 and 40:
Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003). Ove
Page 41 and 42:
1. Lindamood Auditory Discriminatio
Page 43 and 44:
and writing. Students were taught i
Page 45 and 46:
evised as the Lindamood Phoneme Seq
Page 47 and 48:
2.5.10 Torgesen et al. (2004) Torge
Page 49 and 50:
period 1995-2003 were identified, a
Page 51 and 52: “The actual reading impairment a
Page 53 and 54: from multisyllabic words. Instructi
Page 55 and 56: 3 UK intervention studies 3.1 Stage
Page 57 and 58: and effect sizes of 0.55 for readin
Page 59 and 60: used Lexia for 10 weeks, after whic
Page 61 and 62: structured phonologically-based sec
Page 63 and 64: 3.3.9 SIDNEY Norgate and Bentote (2
Page 65 and 66: Table 6. Summary of results of UK i
Page 67 and 68: Table 6 (continued). Summary of res
Page 69 and 70: Table 6 (continued). Summary of res
Page 71 and 72: 3.4 Studies in UK specialist dyslex
Page 73 and 74: Rack and Walker (1994) presented an
Page 75 and 76: probably require some 1:1 teaching
Page 77 and 78: & Baker, 2008; Frost et al., 2005;
Page 79 and 80: Unlike traditional learning disabil
Page 81 and 82: According to Wolfendale and Bryans
Page 83 and 84: cases). Glascoe and Byrne (1993) ar
Page 85 and 86: Between 1.0 and 1.4: moderate dysle
Page 87 and 88: provided by a study reported in Faw
Page 89 and 90: Against the many advantages of comp
Page 91 and 92: Peer, 1998). A high overall level o
Page 93 and 94: Recently Singleton and Henderson (2
Page 95 and 96: 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Scope 5 Read
Page 97 and 98: 5.1.4 Reading Recovery and the teac
Page 99 and 100: writing. To be able to work on word
Page 101: success of the programme appears to
Page 105 and 106: 5.3.2 Every Child a Reader (ECaR) I
Page 107 and 108: phonological awareness compared wit
Page 109 and 110: (accuracy or comprehension or both)
Page 111 and 112: 5.5.2 Key Stage 1 results of Readin
Page 113 and 114: 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2
Page 115 and 116: ‘accelerated progress’ children
Page 117 and 118: It is not until Level 2b that child
Page 119 and 120: Reading Recovery specifically benef
Page 121 and 122: 6 Computer technology and support o
Page 123 and 124: 6.2.1 The advantages of computer as
Page 125 and 126: and Olson, 2000). Software designed
Page 127 and 128: new phonic principle was introduced
Page 129 and 130: impact on reading and spelling, par
Page 131 and 132: Berninger, V.W., & Hidi, S. (2006)
Page 133 and 134: Clay, M.M. (1993a) Observation Surv
Page 135 and 136: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/p
Page 137 and 138: Frost, J. & Sørensen, P.M. (2007)
Page 139 and 140: Hatcher, P.J. (2003) Reading Interv
Page 141 and 142: Kuhn, M.R. & Stahl, S.A. (2003) Flu
Page 143 and 144: Marks, A. & Burden, B. (2005) How U
Page 145 and 146: Olofsson, Å (1992) Synthetic speec
Page 147 and 148: Reason, R. & Boote, R. (1994) Helpi
Page 149 and 150: Singleton, C.H. (1977) Dyslexia or
Page 151 and 152: Speece, D.L., Case, L.P. & Molloy,
Page 153 and 154:
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wa
Page 155 and 156:
Vaughn, S. & Roberts, G. (2007) Sec
Page 157:
Wilson, J. & Frederickson, N. (1995
show all

Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?