Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

dyslexia (and those studies were all very small), all the studies summarised above
targeted children with serious reading difficulties, either children in the below average
range (standard scores 78–85), who were not yet functionally literate, and/or children in
the very low literacy range (standard scores below 78), who were complete non-readers
or perhaps semi-literate. In most cases, the participants were on the SEN register at
either the School Action or School Action Plus stage. It is highly likely that a substantial
proportion of such children were dyslexic.
The results reported from studies in UK specialist schools and teaching centres (Section
3.4) did not produce such impressive results. The ratio gains for the large samples of
dyslexic pupils at East Court School were only in the range 0.86–2.0, those studied by
Hornsby and Miles (1980) produced ratio gains of 1.9, and in the Dyslexia Institute
studies the ratio gains were around 1.0, although effect sizes were moderate. Brooks
(2007) has described ratio gains of between 1.4 and 2.0 as having ‘small impact’ and
being ‘of modest educational significance’; ratio gains less than 1.4 he classes as being
of ‘very small impact’ and ‘of doubtful educational significance’. On this basis all the
results reported from studies in UK specialist schools and teaching centres would be
regarded as disappointing (or even disregarded altogether), since the largest ratio gain
was only 2.0 (except at Moon Hall School – see section 3.3). However, it is well
established that dyslexic pupils who do not receive intervention generally decline
steadily in literacy relative to their peers. Without help, dyslexic pupils have been found
to progress at around only 5 months per calendar year in reading (ratio gain 0.42) and 3
months in spelling (ratio gain 0.25) (Thomson, 1990, 2001; see also Rack and Walker,
1994). Arguably, the achievement of ratio gains of 1.0 or greater represents substantial
progress for these individuals. Their progress has been significantly accelerated,
although in many cases further efforts will be necessary for them to catch up with their
peers. Furthermore, the pupils being served by these interventions are older (average
age around 10 years of age) and typically bear the scars of many years of cumulative
frustration and failure. Such children can be notoriously ‘hard to teach’ (Rack; 2004;
Thomson, 1990; Torgesen, 2005b) and almost invariably require very intensive
intervention. Arguably, a greater intensity of intervention than afforded by the two
sessions per week typically provided by Dyslexia Action would produce better results.
Despite the ratio gain results, real achievements should not be overlooked: at East Court
School, for example, the average performance in reading accuracy and comprehension
by pupils when leaving the school was well within the normal range. Only spelling and
reading fluency – although both much improved – remained below the normal range
(which is a common finding in almost all interventions with older, more severe
dyslexics). But without this specialist input it is likely that the poor rate of progress that
they displayed before the intervention would have continued so that they would
otherwise have been considerably further behind in literacy.
Overall, therefore, it is argued that these findings confirm the conclusions drawn at the
end of Chapter 2, namely that the literacy skills of children with dyslexia can be
substantially improved by use of systematic phonologically-based intervention
approaches, and that this often succeeds in bringing these children’s reading accuracy
and reading comprehension to within average levels, with reading fluency and spelling
(although both much improved) generally remaining somewhat lower. The evidence also
indicates that intervention provided in small groups can be just as effective as that
delivered to children individually, a conclusion with which Fawcett (2002a) concurred in
her review. However, if children also have additional problems, e.g. poor vocabulary
skills, then their response to intervention is likely to be less satisfactory, and they will
74 Intervention for Dyslexia