Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Standard score 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 Pretest 1 Pretest 2 Post-test 1 year follow-up 2 year follow-up Figure 1. Progress in reading before and after intervention (adapted from Torgesen et al., 2001, p. 43). The Lindamood Auditory Discrimination in Depth programme [ADD] group is shown as a solid line, and the Embedded phonics [EP] group as a dotted line Both methods of intensive instruction proved to be very effective, and there were no substantive or persistent differences in outcome between the groups. The only statistically reliable difference in outcome between them was that the students receiving the Lindamood approach showed stronger growth in phonemic decoding skills during the instructional period. Approximately 40% of the sample (46% of the ADD group and 33% of the EP group) were judged to be no longer in need of special education within the first year following the end of the intervention and were returned to full-time mainstream classroom education. However, for between a third and half of the children (according to which measure is used) neither of the interventions was sufficient to ‘normalise’ their reading accuracy (i.e. increase and maintain them at or above standard score 90). In those children whose reading is not normalised, although reading accuracy and comprehension tend to improve significantly during intervention, they fall back after intervention has finished. Reading rate was found particularly hard to normalize, with the mean level at follow-up being not significantly different to what it was at the start of the study. The degree of impairment at pre-test, and the amount of improvement during intervention, were both significant predictors of outcome, with the children who were least impaired at pre-test and those who made the most gains during intervention having the best outcomes. During the follow-up period, the most consistent predictors of successful outcome were levels of attention and behaviour ratings by teachers. 2.5.2 Rashotte, McPhee and Torgesen (2001) A study of intervention for students with severe reading difficulties across 1 st to 6 th grades (Rashotte, McPhee and Torgesen, 2001) included 33 students in grades 5 and 6 for whom this could be regarded as a tertiary intervention since most of these students had been classified as learning disabled (LD) and had been on regular special education programmes. An intervention group was compared with an untreated control group that subsequently also received intervention (i.e. became the delayed intervention group). The instructional method was the Spell Read PAT (Phonological Auditory Training) programme, which incorporates systematic tuition in phonemic awareness, phonic skills 42 Intervention for Dyslexia ADD EP
and writing. Students were taught in groups of 3-5 for 50 minutes daily, with a total of 35 hours of instruction being given over a period of about eight weeks. The intervention was delivered by four specially trained instructors, of whom only one was a qualified teacher. At the first post-test the intervention group showed statistically significant gains on all measures of reading accuracy, phonological decoding, comprehension and spelling, but non-significant gains on word fluency. Notable improvements (in standard score points) included 18.5 for word attack, 8.8 for passage comprehension, 13.9 for reading rate, 20.0 for segmenting words and 8.6 for pseudoword spelling. Effect sizes (compared with the control group) were 2.2 for word attack, 0.64 for passage comprehension, 0.92 for reading rate, 2.38 for segmenting words and 2.65 for pseudoword spelling. At the second post-test, administered after the delayed intervention group had completed instruction, the first intervention group were found to have maintained the gains shown at first post-test, and the delayed intervention group displayed similar outcomes (16.0 gain for word attack, 9.0 for passage comprehension, 8.8 for reading rate, and 25.6 for segmenting words; pseudoword spelling not administered). Figure 2 illustrates some of the main findings from the study by Rashotte et al. (2001). The slopes for the first intervention group are steep from pre-test to post-test 1 (the period during which this group received special intervention) and then level off between post-test 1 and post-test 2 (the period during which they received only regular instruction), except for comprehension (pink solid line), which continues to improve after the intervention ceased. The slopes for the delayed intervention group are level or only slightly elevated from pre-test to post-test 1 (the period during which this group did not receive intervention) but steep from post-test 1 and post-test 2, when this group was receiving special intervention. 2.5.3 Reviews and analyses by Torgesen (2005a & 2005b) Torgesen (2005a & 2005b) has reviewed several studies of intensive tertiary intervention for older severely disabled readers, which may be compared with the studies by Torgesen et al. (2001) and Rashotte et al. (2001) described above. The participants in these studies had intelligence in the normal range, had severe phonological difficulties and were severely impaired in text reading accuracy and fluency, and hence arguably can be described as dyslexic. In all but two of the studies the students started the study with reading accuracy below standard score 80 (9 th centile). The metric applied to calculate the effectiveness of intervention was the amount of gain (in standard score units) per hour of instruction. These studies are outlined below and the principal results shown in Table 4 (page 46). Intervention for Dyslexia 43
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: 1. Lindamood Auditory Discriminatio
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 and 102:
success of the programme appears to
Page 103 and 104:
in a meta-analysis. However, the av
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?