Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

typical 35+ hours of teacher time for Reading Recovery, i.e. approximately 10% of those
required for Reading Recovery, and delivered by instructors who had received far less
training, further enhancing the cost-effectiveness of this approach to intervention.
A further study by these authors (Fawcett, Nicolson, Moss, Nicolson & Reason, 2001)
examined the same approach but with older children. The participants in the
experimental group (N=36; mean age 7 years 7 months) were given the intervention
programme in pairs for two 30-minute sessions per week for 10 weeks (10 hours total
intervention). Although the intervention proved to be effective, with significant gains
being made in literacy compared with a control group (N=51) matched for age and
reading performance (effect size at the end of the intervention: 0.67), these were not as
strong as had been found in the infant school study (ES 0.95). The authors calculated
that this intervention produced comparable gains to Reading Recovery but at
approximately 20% of the cost.
A follow-up six months later showed that the effect size of the gains made by the
intervention group dropped from 0.67 to 0.55, gains in reading being largely maintained
while gains in spelling were partly lost. Just over a third of the intervention group (36%)
maintained their progress over the subsequent six months after the intervention ceased;
arguably, these children can be regarded as having reached the stage at which they can
keep up with their peers in literacy development. Although the remainder of the children
made significant progress as a result of the intervention when compared with the control
group, they must be regarded as still being in need of support.
Nicolson, Fawcett & Nicolson (2000) evaluated a computer-based version of IA&T called
RITA (Reader’s Intelligent Teaching Assistant) with 58 Year 2 and 16 Year 3 pupils in
four schools. The computer program RITA does not replace the teacher; rather the
teacher uses RITA to specify activities for the child to work through, and RITA stores
and analyses the results of the student’s work. Over a 10-week intervention period, and
in comparison with control groups matched on age and reading ability, the RITA studies
produced effect sizes for reading of 0.30 (Year 2) and 1.34 (Year 3) and for spelling of
0.98 (Year 2) and 0.77 (Year 3). Compared with the data obtained by Nicolson, Fawcett,
Moss, Nicolson & Reason (1999) using the IA&T approach without computer support
(reported above), these results are about the same for spelling, somewhat poorer for
Year 2 reading but considerably better for Year 3 reading. Of the 75 children in both
studies with RITA intervention, 49% made good progress (literacy improvement 5
standard score points or greater), 22% made modest progress (improvement between 2
and 4 standard score points), and 24% may be said to have maintained their position
(improvement between 0.7 and 1.5 standard score points). During the intervention only
four children (5%) declined in performance. Given that the total teacher time (including
preparation) was only 6 hours per Year 2 child and 8 hours per Year 3 child, this
intervention can be considered highly cost-effective. However, overall the results
suggest little extra benefit of the computerised version of the IA&T intervention over the
conventional one, although the authors report enhanced motivation of children using the
RITA program.
3.3.3 Lexia
Wilson and Clarke (2005) reported on a study carried out in York using the computerbased
phonics teaching system Lexia, originally developed in the USA for children with
dyslexia. A total of 42 children in seven schools participated in the project; most of these
children were on the SEN register at School Action or School Action Plus. The pupils
58 Intervention for Dyslexia